Thurman#1

That's correct. In other words, he was considered the 3rd best ILB in the AFC. In his second year. Tyrod, on the other hand was, what? A fifth or sixth replacement? The Pro Bowl QBs that year after many guys turned them down were Russell Wilson, Jameis Winston, Bridgewater, Derek Carr, Eli Manning and Tyrod.

I'm sure Kim Pegula would be totally fine with this explanation. Why don't you call her and try it on her? She'd definitely have plenty of time for you.

Yes, true. But the idea that Ford is bad is a stupid one. You're right there are a lot of bad OG/OTs out there. None of them are as good as Ford may well be. His problem is that he was playing the wrong position for a long time, that he had to switch not just position but also side and do so without a real training camp, and that he is now injured. He's extremely early in his career as a G.

Our RBs are both fine. Exceptional? No. But the problems with our run game fall as much or more on the OL.

Right, if he did, that would work. But he doesn't.

This. I'm past worrying about making the playoffs. Much more concerned with matchups and seeds.

Would much rather have seen a Ravens loss. Don't want to play them, and now we easily might, even on wild card weekend.

With the extension and our cap situation, it's not zero, but it's very close.

They discussed Prescott? Fair enough. Nothing wrong with discussion.

"Almost beating" isn't beating. Yeah, the Chargers "almost beat the Chiefs this season," yeah. The Chargers have almost beaten a lot of teams this year. They just didn't actually beat any that weren't the Jets, Jags and Falcons. Yes, the Chargers beating the Chiefs really is improbable. Not impossible, but very improbable.

Good post, but as for Taron Johnson not coming off the field when healthy, the numbers don't show that. Week by week, he's been out there 48, 57, 60, 54, 37, 63, 48, 49, 44, 73, 76, 60 percent of the snaps before last week. He appears to be a guy who is almost never out there 100%, but is closer to 80% consistently. Little to no doubt about it. He'll see roughly the same number of snaps he saw the last few years. They went up and down a bit, but in run situations he'll be out there a lot.

IMO Milano's not being out there so much has more to do with them gradually easing him back into the lineup after injury than it does with situations. Could be wrong about that, obviously. We'll see, but that's what most commentators (Buscaglia, Parrino, the News, etc.) predicted, and it made sense to me before the game that his snaps would be up but he wouldn't be full-time yet. Good post. Interesting.

No, but again, that's a dumb argument. If that's the way he felt, here's what he should have said, "The guy is a warrior. Tough. Just the guy I want to go into battle with." Or "He gives 110% effort 110% of the time. Tre is freaky." Or "This kid has an awesome future ahead of him." I'm sure any of us could come up with 100 of these generic, "I want him in an alley fight with me" cliches. That's what he'd have said. But what actually happened is that he went out of his way to be specific about the fact that he's a true Mike, even though he wasn't asked about which position he should play. The reason he did that is real, real, real simple. It's what he thinks. The whole "I know what he's thinking, he actually means the opposite of what he's saying because you can't say what you actually think" argument is complete crap. Of course you can't throw your guy under the bus. But you can throw out the Crash Davisisms, the locker room cliches, by the bucketload and by the hour. Those are what you hear when a guy doesn't want to say what he thinks. If a guy's praise is wildly general, it's possible he's not saying what he means. Extremely specific praise means he's saying what he means. Pretending that extremely specific praise can't be avoided is pure horsecrap.

Yup. He got healthy. The rest of the D did too and they started working together ... and he's playing extremely well again. Golly, who could have predicted this? Outside anyone with a lick of sense.

So totally agree with you on that play where Smith-Schuster hit Edmunds. Edmunds put him into the ground. That was a nice play on both sides and the announcers only mentioned Smith-Schuster. Nice writeup.

The officials underneath have the absolute best possible view, to the millimeter. Not worried in the slightest they miss this call.

The way to counter it is for the WR to get past it. The DB has to come forward. Get past that and the WR is gone.

It's way way way too early to say it's "just not going to happen." It might or it might not. It's his second year and he's missed a lot of time to injuries. Having said that, it hasn't happened yet.

They've been legit for weeks, since we found out how far Allen had come this offseason.

After Romo, Collinsworth. There are one or two others who are close, but those two are the best.

We get rid of those three and we'll have to replace them with probably two FAs. It would just leave holes. Murphy certainly seems almost certain. Butler and Jefferson considerably less so, though obviously they are both possibilities. But if you get rid of them, that leaves under contract : DEs: Addison, Epenesa, Hughes, Darryl Johnson DTs: Lotulelei, Oliver and Phillips Since we run an eight-man platoon, those seven alone would require us to bring in probably three guys, certainly two. I'm hoping we find a way, but I can't see much chance of keeping Milano, Feliciano and Williams. And Williams is the one who will maybe be the most expensive of the three. My guess is MIlano is the #1 priority of the three. I just don't see them having enough to keep Williams. If they do find enough, it'll likely be by creating new holes elsewhere, holes that will have to be filled one way or another.

Yeah, the two point conversions were the problem in that game. Good point. We played so well in the rest of the game.

In total, the NFL is usually within two or three points of 50%. The difference between 2.5 of 5 and 4 of 5 is more dependent on small sample size than anything else. I'm leery about that.

I didn't put that together till you said that. Interesting. With Allen on the roster, that hurts an awful lot less, doesn't it?

Oh, please. this is all ridiculous. Again let's point out the thing that you people who hate PFF want to avoid. Pretty much every NFL team buys their stuff. If they weren't excellent at what they do, these teams would not do that. And yet they do. PFF is very good at what they do. Chip Kelly is on record as having thought they were full of crap. PFF challenged him and they graded the same game. Kelly was shocked to find almost 100% complete agreement. They know what they are doing. So if it grues you, but not the NFL, no, sorry dude, that's on you. And of course we know whether it's Morse's guy or Winters' guy on 98% of the plays. If Morse is on one guy and Winters is trying to block but failing on another guy, it's not as if it's hard to figure it out. Yeah, if a guy runs between two OLs neither of whom is engaged, yeah, you don't know who had the problem. But that kind of play is pretty unusual and again, PFF does not mark down anyone if it's not clear whose fault it is. The fact that you're not putting a grade on those plays you talk about is irrelevant. When you say "bad throw" or "great throw," or "Oh, he got beaten, you're just saying with words what they're saying with numbers. No, you don't have a specific rubric as they do, but you're grading every play as well, but in words and without the painstaking watch-every-play-over-and-over level of thoroughness that they have committed to. We do indeed have long long discussions on here about some plays. Those are the other 2%. In every game there are 11 Bills working on doing their jobs for around 120 plays. That's roughly 1320 player-plays per game. Take 2% of that and the answer will be far far more than the number of plays that we have large arguments about each week. 98% of what happens is very obvious. I certainly do agree that there are the 2%. That's why I said 98% rather than 100%. And as for your "2 feet" off-target on the pass thing, when you can slow down and stop the video, it's pathetically easy to tell whether the guy put it on the mark or two feet behind allowing the defensive player to get a hand in. It's so easy I can do it, and I'm no genius.. It's so easy the commentators do it within about ten seconds of the play, having looked at in real time and very possibly not having had the chance to look at it again. And if they did look at it again, they didn't have time to use slo-mo or coaches film or all the wheels and gizmos available after the games. It's not that difficult for anyone. And they are extremely good at it. If they weren't, the NFL teams simply would not buy their stuff.