Thurman#1

Do you ever read posts you reply to? Overall, I'd suggest it, and it's obvious you didn't here. For the third time, I said that I did NOT use any analytics, nor did the OP, or you. And you have an excellent point about the Chargers game in Week 17 ... but um, how about the other six games I mentioned? Nothing whatsoever? Zippety? You know, the six games where Mahomes did play where the Chiefs were also held to 24 points or less? In these last two years? Anything to say about them? Zilch? Zippo? Diddly? Even the slightest crumb? Even a flyspeck about the fact that in their six losses the past two years, in four of them they scored 13, 24, 24 and 21? Yeah, that last one Mahomes didn't play, but did he in the other three? Because if he did, that means that of their six losses, in four they were held to 24 and below and in both of the other two they were held to an unspectacular - for them - 32? Yeah, didn't think so. Even if you throw out the non-Mahomes game, the majority of their losses came by holding them to 24 or less.

So your point is that our offense was spectacular? That we could have outscored them if only we hadn't run so much? Could you real quick point out where I said that our defense performed well against KC? No? Well, if you're not going to say anything related to what I said, that's fine, but don't reply to me. You don't reply to a guy and then pretend he said something he didn't. We didn't have a "nail in the coffin." They were simply better than us in every phase of the game except STs.

I think he will get a lot for what he is. But obviously he's no Khalil Mack or Von Miller or even Bobby Wagner. He's a good rusher but not great. So my guess is he's looking for around the best ILB who's not Bobby Wagner sort of thing. This also could be a start to negotiation. I think that's reasonably likely. IMO he'll get somewhere in the Kwon Alexander - Shaq Thompson range. $10 - $13M average salary sort of thing. My guess is the Bills would be interested at $10M but not at $13M. And that if they are interested they would try to get him to sign a contract that is cap friendly for the first year, and that Milano would be very interested if the other terms were what he wanted. If he wants too much, they'll let him go, but I think they will want him back and be willing to pay him a lot. He gives them a lot. No reason to replace Star, whether you're talking the value you (don't) save by cutting him, or the fact that we don't have a guy who does what he does. Not signing Milano saves us zero, as he's a free agent. Addison would save us a bit but require us to spend money to replace him. If Milano goes they're virtually certain to try to replace him by drafting another OLB. Our game change on the DL is likely Oliver in his third year when he's got Lotulelei next to him.

Quick checked five big boards. They have him from 15 - 23. Don't see him falling to 30.

Hogwash. You say you "can't make a great O like KC "inefficient." That's pure nonsense. Was KC's great O efficient when they scored 23 against the Chargers this year? Or the 2nd time they played the Chargers when they only scored 21? Or 22 against the Broncos? Or 17 against the Falcons? In what Bizarro world is scoring 17 against Atlanta, who allowed an average of 25.9 PPG this year "efficient"? It's not. Or the 22 they scored against the Browns? Or last year when they scored 13, 24, 24, 24, 23 and 23 points in games against, respectively, Indy, Houston, Green Bay, the Chargers, the Pats and the Broncos. Unsurprisingly, they lost 3 of those 6 games. Hold KC to lower points and you can beat them. And it's certainly not impossible to hold them to lower points. More nonsense. You say "u don't beat this team in 13-10 games." Bullcrap. Indy beat them 19-13 last year. With Mahomes under center. Now, obviously, they couldn't have done that by limiting them to few effective drives, since you've said that's impossible. Wooooopsy! That's exactly what they did, holding the Chiefs to 9 effective drives, really ten but the tenth started 0:04 seconds before halftime deep in Indy territory and was a one kneel-down drive. Indy won that game doing precisely what you say can't work. Oh, and by the way, none of this is analytics, anymore than anything whatsoever you have said has. It's just sensible argument. So, again, where are the analytics that make all these great claims?

You say that "Analytics for years now has consistently demonstrated that the “strategy” of controlling the clock via run game etc so as to keep a great QB on the sidelines is a losing strategy. Not a shred of evidence that it ever works, despite many in the WNY media touting this strategy." Fine, where is the evidence that it never works. There is none, of course, since the word "never" makes your contention there obviously wrong. But let's pretend you'd said it in a reasonable manner, something like, "There is no evidence that teams that use the strategy of controlling the clock win at a higher rate." Where's the evidence for that? 'Cause I've search for about an hour now and I don't find anything. But hey, it's only an hour, I could definitely have missed something. You're totally sure of this, so you must have something. Teach me, I'm willing to learn. Where do the analytics say this?

Well, I guess we can agree to disagree. But I don't think he's got some unfixable arm problem. Take a look at this: Go to 2:05. That's a dime, this year, 55 yards in the air, without stepping into it. Might he have injured himself later in the year? Yeah, sure. But I don't think arm strength is a problem for this guy. Throwing is. He hasn't been accurate with any consistency. I think he might get it back together. I'm not saying he will, but IMO he might.

Yup. The McDermott defense calls for a light-in-the-pants DL, with one exception. He wants that big 'ol space-eater at 1-tech to make it easier for the fast LBs he likes. Losing Star hurt a lot, and made the DL as a whole look not as good. McDermott's always had a massive 1-tech jamming things up in the middle. He needs it that way for the D to work at it's maximum level.

You're right. When you look at the Pro Bowl rosters year after year you see what a joke they are. Year after year you see lineups that would be defeated by any NFL team out there ... oh, wait, you really don't see that at all. What you see is a lineup that is better than any single team's even the SB teams. Should Pro Bowls be used as the only thing to judge how good a player is? Hell, no. But they absolutely mean something. And yes, Tyrod was invited to two Pro Bowls ... as a 6th alternate and I think the other was the 4th alternate. It ain't the same thing. Edmunds on the other hand was the first alternate last year, meaning that he was widely considered a top 3 ILB in the AFC at that point. This year he was a selection, not an alternate, meaning he was considered a top two AFC ILB. If someone wants to argue that he's a bit below top two, that's a reasonable argument. But the whole "it's a joke" thing is nonsense. He wasn't good at the beginning of the year when injured. But by the end, when they were voting, he was playing at a very high level. That's what people saw and why he was voted in. Did he play as well against the Chiefs? Nope, he sure didn't. But neither did Allen, Diggs ... the list goes on.

You're right. If someone is unwilling to see, even two Pro Bowls won't make it quite clear. And when a guy is unwilling to see, he will indeed not be watching the same thing as everyone else is. The two Pro Bowls tell you what everyone else sees, but they can't force sense on anyone.

Palmer has said before several times there's a lot they couldn't get to last season. They worked on his mechanics the last two years but even more specifically last year with the body scan they did. And he's said before that they concentrated on the two major changes they found he needed but that there are details that still need to be addressed. It is a good article.

IMO injuries aren't the problem with Cam's throwing. I'd argue it's more about mechanical problems and a relative lack of concentration on the fundamentals of the motion (not to even mention the lack of good players around him on offense). He's always gone in and out of tune with his motion, as Chris Simms has mentioned. He's never been all about throwing, and he's always had accuracy problems. He had games this year where his throwing looked pretty good. Then some where it looked awful. I think his injuries would sooner affect his legs and his running, the area that's still his strong point. I share your worry about Josh's long-term health if he keeps running. I think he's going to start sliding more and more as he grows older and cannier. We're seeing it already.

Yeah, the titles may have a little something to do with that worship. As the article says, during the Brady era a lot of players were willing to take less to go there. Have to admit I like the current situation better. And getting rid of Hopkins could well have been one of the straws that broke the camel's back on that.

No, he really isn't. Two Pro Bowls make it quite clear. Yeah, he was bad early when fighting the injury and when the Bills had injury and scheme problems. Since then he's been much better. There's still room for improvement, but an offseason should hopefully help with that.

IMO it ain't so much his reading comprehension as your very unclear writing. Your last sentence is, "These players can all be replaced in the draft or cheaper route in FA." That could easily be read to mean that you think all eight of them should go because they could easily be replaced.

Sooner or later, Jerry Hughes is going to lose a step. Until he does, cutting him (or Hyde) for such a small savings is nuts. Lotulelei will be back, and that will make one of our interior DLs expendable. Cut more of them than that and you'll just have to pay similar money to replace them. They run a platoon. So they need four starter quality interior DLs and four starter quality exterior DLs. And your list includes the dead cap and yet your calculations do not. More, you're blithely assuming you can replace these guy in the draft or cheaper. A little bit cheaper, yeah, maybe. But bringing in guys who wouldn't be less effective especially in year one is not going to be nearly as easy or as cheap as you assume. Several of these guys will almost certainly go. The likelihood of all, or even most, going is far less.

Gotta be ruthless. Don't gotta be stupid. Cutting him with extremely little savings before someone beats him out would be outright stupid. Beane made clear in his PC that he isn't looking at the RBs as having failed. It would be hard to miss what that means, but many obviously have. It's possible that Singletary went from 2nd in the league in YPA to this year being below average because he regressed ... and it's possible that the other RB running behind the same line who most folks on here like more because of his one-cut and go, bruising style, that back had nearly the same YPA except a tenth of a yard less than Singletary because, because, I don't know, because the footing was bad and the sun was in their eyes, maybe. It's possible. But it's not likely.

I would watch if the Bills were in it. Otherwise no way. So, I don't think it's worth doing. I suppose you could give the winner the 3rd pick next year and the loser the 4th. Even then not really worth watching.

I love the name. Always reading that book to the kid these days. But trading up to 15 would require trading a 1st rounder. Trading to 20 would still need around a 3rd. I like your guy Pitts, but don't see any way a prudent GM trades away that much value in a year when he has so little money to add guys in FA. They're gonna need their first three or four draftees to contribute. If he somehow falls and they like him, he'd make a great addition.

Yeah, they would have a bit of cap after cutting those guys. But not much. Cut Mario Addison and you end up with a lot of dead cap. You save like a couple of mill. And they would also have created holes that need filling. Cut them and you have to bring in guys to replace them in the platoon that our coaches like to run. Those guys will cost money. Brown, if they cut him, would actually save us a bit, but you're still left with miniscule money on the cap. They've got 53 guys on the roster for right now, and they're over the cap by $7 mill. But among the guys on that roster are guys who will likely be camp cuts, taxi squad or simply gone. Tannger Gentry, Christian Wade, Duke Williams, Trey Adams, Nate Becker, Cam Lewis, Josh Thomas, Antonio Williams, Brandin Bryant, Bryan Cox Jr., Davis Webb, Kumerow ... If any more than 2 or 3 of those guys are on the roster, we will suffer from lack of depth and personnel problems. But to replace them with guys who can play if they have to isn't a minimum salary deal, generally. It costs money. We simply aren't going to have a lot this year. Yes, they can make some cuts or re-do some contracts. Even after that, we won't have much after signing our rookie draftees, re-signing whoever we can manage out of Milano, Feliciano and Darryl Williams, giving Allen a contract with a signing bonus, etc.

This isn't a difficult question. He said it because he meant it. He meant it because it's what the situation dictates. Is it possible we get a shot somehow at getting our own Travis Kelce for almost no money off the cap? Well, yeah, anything's possible but it's a thousand to one. He said it because he knew Bills fans are going to expect big things because that's how fans work. And it's not the right situation or even close. He knows that and wants us to be ready. But I'm sure he also knows that there are people out there who simply will not hear what they don't want to hear and will continue calling for expensive FAs and trades that would leave us with huge amounts of dead cap and cap deficits. There will be moves. There will be no blockbuster moves. That is the overwhelming likelihood. But hey, some fans won't face reality. It's unpleasant.

IMO ... Talent/Coaching/Scheme: 50/10/10 And the other 30% comes from further development and improvement.

How many SB wins? How much better have they gotten in the last three years as they trade away those first round picks? How good is their cap situation as they trade away the chance to get good young players on rookie contracts for the chance to own older players on expensive second contracts? Winning one post-season game this year and not making the playoffs last year should not be seen as a good result for a team that made the Super Bowl in 2018.

There's some real truth here. Goff isn't as bad as some have made out, IMO. But it's in McVay's interest that people think Goff is largely to blame. That said, I think it's clear Stafford is better. But giving up 2 firsts will really limit what they can put around Stafford.

2016 with Goff. Then 2015 with Hurley, and before that 2014 with Greg Robinson (recently jailed for 150 pounds of marijuana which may not all have been for personal use) and Aaron Donald, 2013 Tavon Auston and Alec Ogletree and 2012 with Michael Brockers. You're dead right that they haven't used their 1sts lately. But when you look at what they got when they most recently did use them, you see a lot of the better guys who've been on that team recently. Maybe they should use them more. Too late for the next two years, though. With Stafford, but also with no 1st rounder and already $13M over the cap, it will be hard for them to have a roster without a bunch of holes this year. Stafford is good, a lot better than he's been given credit for. But like every other QB, he will need a talented roster around him for the team to be competititive for a title.