Thurman#1

Oh, please. This whole "only the players and coaches know what's happening" thing is utter nonsense. If it were true, nobody would bother watching tape, including the teams. On probably 98% of all plays it's very very obvious what happened. Hell, it's obvious to us on TV what happened most of the time with less than 40 seconds to look at it. Yes, there are occasional plays where it's not certain. When the receiver goes left and the QB throws right, there was a miscommunication, and that leaves a legitimate question for those outside the locker room for who made the mistake. But how often does that happen? It's not even close to one out of ten times, not even on the worst offenses in history. It's rare. It's one of PFF's founding principles, very very clearly stated on their site, that if they're not certain who's at fault, they don't downgrade guys. Honestly, if it grues you out, that's on you. How often are you on here dissecting a play and saying what happened? A lot. How come? You weren't in the locker room. The coaches haven't called you and told you what was supposed to happen. We all do this all the time because because nearly always it's very very obvious what happened. With the benefit of hindsight and slo-mo video, extremely obvious on a massive majority of plays.

Right. It was a crappy OP, and nobody had posted a single thing with substance. I pointed that out. I suppose I could have brought substance to it, but didn't feel I needed to, what with the level at the time.

No, Hap. It's perfectly possible for passes PFF terms "turnover worthy" throws to be intercepted. In fact, that's precisely what a near-majority of INTs are ... they're the result of turnover-worthy passes. A pass that's tipped up into the air and INT'd is not turnover-worthy. A pass that is thrown short into the hands of an LB and INT'd absolutely is considered turnover-worthy by PFF. INTs absolutely can be turnover-worthy. If you'll look at this, you'll see they even have a chart where they look at how many of their various kinds of turnover-worthy throws actually were intercepted. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-pff-qb-grading-most-effective-tool-there-is And a quick explanation, from the same article, written on the PFF site: "Not all turnover-worthy plays become turnovers "As the previous chart shows us, not all turnover-worthy plays will become turnovers. Using 2017 data, throws graded -1.0 were intercepted 34.7 percent of time, throws graded -1.5 were intercepted 58.3 percent of the time, and throws graded -2.0 were intercepted 83.3 percent of the time. They all fit into the turnover-worthy category despite different levels of interception probability, but there is a clear difference between the turnover-worthy throws and the throws graded -0.5 that result in an interception only 2.4 percent of the time. Therefore, it’s fair to put turnover-worthy throws in their own category, despite 48.2 percent of all turnover-worthy throws resulting in interceptions." They divide turnover-worthy throws into categories of horribleness. The -/-/- are the worst throws, and they list 83.3% of them as having produced INTs, for instance. In my post which you replied to, I wondered what they have that INT that was entirely created by the refs graded. You say since it was INT's, it isn't turnover-worthy. So, no, that's wrong. My guess is they either have that INT graded as not turnover-worthy or as the least bad form of turnover-worthy, the -1.0, also called in their chart the "-", as opposed to the "-/-" or the "-/-/-". I'd like to know which it was but unless they tell us about that plays specifically, we'll have to guess. On most plays it's reasonably easy to tell, but all rubrics have grey areas, and that play IMO falls into one.

So, it's bad, and it's about Allen, so it must be wrong. I see how this works. Makes total sense. Excellent arguments, all around, on this thread. Not one person has addressed the substance, yet panties are bunched. To be fair, I loved this comment: Fair point. Wonder how that was graded. Allen's been terrific. PFF acknowledges that. Playing well can sometimes be accompanied by a bad stat here or there. Remember the one about how Rodgers had about the lowest comeback percentage in world history, because he's generally got them ahead? Or Favre's high INTs?

Possible. But they need him.

SWEET!!!!

This, with the exception of your last sentence. I think getting this team to 11-1 has been doing a terrific job. They're not as good as that record would make them seem. He's changed the way Roethlisberger operates, and absolutely maximized him as he gets older. Agreed that early in his career he seemed overrated. But he handled guys who have later proved unhandleable. He integrated Antonio Brown into a team. Got them through last year as a respectable team. He's really really good, in a non-flashy way.

Bayless admits Josh is terrific, loves him. Just loves Baker more, which is a bit weird maybe but has nothing to do with Josh hate. Nick Wright, who I'd never heard of till your post, does have a wacky take. That's two guys. Two. One of whom thinks Allen is great. IMO this insistence on finding Josh hate is like looking at one of the world's greatest arboretums and saying, "See, look at all that dirt."

He was saying that he feels like the Chiefs are better but maybe it's not real, maybe that feeling is a result of just seeing them more often, a kind of cognitive bias.

This.

No. It's directly against the interests of the players and coaches to show poorly. The GM is the only one who can think this way. To think Gase isn't trying is nuts. He's going to be looking for a job. If he looks like a bad coach, he's less likely to get hired.

No, you don't remember that. That's from your own imagination, not reality. Nobody claimed he'd be a future Hall of Famer and and nobody claimed his loss would set us back ten years. Plenty of people thought he was a solid player and that we'd miss him. They were right. He'd have been an upgrade on the Zay Jones - Kelvin Benjamin - Brandon Tate year in 2017. 2018 too. Maybe 2016 when Sammy was on the bench, which was half the year.

Because there are three or four guys who do something certainly does not prove that everyone who isn't used that much is underutilized. In fact, it might point out that the guys who are being used that much are overutilized. Or that some guys - say guys with a significant injury history - shouldn't be used that way. Or that some guys who don't weigh a ton - just picking a number out of the air, a guy who weighs 208, for example - should not be used that way if they are expected not to wear down. I hear you that you're not after Jones, but it absolutely would open major holes in the DL. To repeat myself ... you said elsewhere here that you think they can cut Butler, Jefferson and Matakevich without losing much. I don't see how. Next year our DLs under contract are Addison, Hughes, Epenesa, Daryl Johnson, Butler, Lotulelei, Jefferson, Ed Oliver and Phillips. Cut Butler and Jefferson and they don't have the eight platoon guys that this system demands. They'd have: DEs: Addison, Hughes, Epenesa and Daryl Johnson, and DTs: Lotulelei, Oliver and Phillips That's a group that would need some FAs to plug the gaps. You could replace them in FA for cheaper, but not all that much cheaper, not if you 're looking for quality players.

I would disagree. Many turnovers are INTs and plenty of times they have more to do with things that aren't correlated with violence. Look at Tre White coming off his own route on his last two picks and covering a different guy by reading the QB's eyes. Or a DL seeing he's not going to make it to the QB and laying back and timing his jump to deflect the ball up into the air for someone else to hopefully intercept. Plenty of fumbles also aren't so much about violence as they are about well-timed slaps on an RB or QB who doesn't see you coming. I don't think there's anything that is a good surrogate or a good way to measure it. About all we have is the eye test, and we all seem to see the same teams as the most violent.

Yeah, cutting guys would clear some money. But doing that would also open massive holes across the starting lineup which would then have to be filled with free agents which would cost pretty much the same amount and would then require a lot of time to learn to work together. And that's all before they sign their draftees and do their best to re-sign some combination of Feliciano, Milano and Daryl Williams. We're not going to see big spending in FA, it's a very very safe bet. They will likely let go two or three, maybe even four of those guys you list up above, but then they would have to replace them, which will cost money. You said elsewhere here that you think they can cut Butler, Jefferson and Matakevich without losing much. I don't see how. Next year our DLs under contract are Addison, Hughes, Epenesa, Daryl Johnson, Butler, Lotulelei, Jefferson, Ed Oliver and Phillips. Cut Butler and Jefferson and they don't have the eight platoon guys that this system demands. They'd have: DEs: Addison, Hughes, Epenesa and Daryl Johnson, and DTs: Lotulelei, Oliver and Phillips That's a group that would need some FAs to plug the gaps. You could replace them in FA for cheaper, but not all that much cheaper, not if you 're looking for quality players. You could get a cheaper STs guy than Matakevich, but if you want him to be good, it wouldn't be all that much cheaper.

Yeah, they allowed a lot of points to Arizona and Seattle. So does everyone. And you're right that "having a decent game doesn't mean they don't kinda suck." But they didn't just have a decent game. They've had five solid games in a row on defense. But hey, if you want to miss that, it's your business, really. Pretty much everyone else sees it, not just locally but nationally. But again, you wanna be behind the curve, that's up to you. If they were healthy they'd be Super Bowl contenders. They're very unhealthy, though. I'm a bit worried too, but not wildly so this game. I do expect them to be able to run on the Bills a bit, though.

And if we had theoretical cap money to bring in the theoretical elite TE available on the market.

There are a few times you pay running backs. None of those times is when you have about $3 mill under the cap this year and about $6 mlll next year ... before you even sign your draftees. None. We're not going to be getting anyone even mildly expensive next year.

Wow, interesting. And to be #4 in blitz percentage and #25 in hurry percentage is crazy good.

I searched for this before posting, and was surprised not to find it her on the boards yet. Mods, if I missed something, please feel free to fold it into another thread. https://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/2020/12/bills-matt-milano-almost-back-impact-on-aj-kleins-role-tremaine-edmunds-a-true-mlb.html "Last week against the Los Angeles Chargers, Klein was the star, finishing with a game-high 14 tackles and 1.5 sacks. But Edmunds was arguably just as good. Pro Football Focus gave Klein a 91.0 grade in run defense and Edmunds just barely lower at a 90.7. In Edmunds last three games he’s received overall grades of 62.3, 63.6, and 74.2. The highest single-game grade he registered in his first 7 games was a 55.5. "Klein played with 5x first team All Pro middle linebacker Luke Kuechly in Carolina and watched him play the position as well as anybody has done it this century. He said Edmunds is a smart player whose preparation and leadership make him stand out. He said Edmunds is a true “Mike” linebacker. “ 'When you watch him on film not many guys that are his size can move and cover like he does,' Klein said. 'To be able to be that downhill, physical guy that he is, not only his skill set physically but his skillset mentally. How he approaches the game and how he understands the game, how he studies - he is a true ‘Mike’ linebacker and that’s where he belongs. You can see him, he’s sideline to sideline making plays all across the field. ... He really is something special to watch. It’s fun to be able to play with him.' ” ------------- This should end the discussion. But it won't. There are plenty of people who think they're way smarter and know more about the Bills defense than guys who play on it or coach for it. We'll doubtless hear from them. But let's hear none of the "Well, he had to say that," nonsense, because it's just not true. All he had to say was - and this is true of every player or coach - is the Crash Davis cliches. Yeah, you can't say bad things of a teammate. But it's totally fine to restrict yourself to the usual, "He gives 110% eight days a week and 25 hours a day," or "I want him beside me in an alley fight," or "He's a good good player. Works hard and it shows," or "I want him in my foxhole with me," or "I love going to war with that guy" or "True Buffalo Bills spirit. A tough guy who always brings it," the usual copy-and-paste sayings. Those are what you have to say. When you get very specific about things, you're going far beyond what you have to say and you're saying what you believe. Klein wasn't asked about whether Tremaine is a Mike. He simply said what he sees and knows.

Best of luck to him. He'll be remembered here.

They used coverage against Mahomes. It worked very well but KC just said, oh ok, we'll just run all game.

1) The likelihood of them signing an expensive FA next year with $2.9 Mill left under the cap to roll over to next year and $4.8M available next year ... effectively zero. Expect our most expensive FA to be barely mid-range. 2) And plenty of people play defense. Not all play sensational defense but most of the best teams play good defense. The difference between the 2018 Chiefs and the 2019 SB winners was picking up two defensive difference makers (Mathieu and Frank Clark) and getting a lot better on that side of the ball. The Saints have a terrific defense, as of course do the Steelers and Ravens. So do the Rams, Colts, Dolphins and the Niners, who if they weren't horribly injured would be easily a top ten team. 2) A TE and an RB in rounds one and two? That might not be zero but it's wildly low. RB isn't one of their top five needs. TE might be top 5 but they're unlikely to address it with a first-rounder.

Disagree away. They were really good against the Cardinals, with the exception of the Hail Mary, which was mostly lucky. Two turnovers and did plenty to win until the Hail Mary. Good against the Seahawks too. Four turnovers, for Pete's sake. They set up Allen and the offense for a bunch of their points. Considering those are two of the absolute best offenses in football, yeah, they played well. Great? No. Good? Six turnovers in two games against two terrific offenses? Yeah. And I noticed you didn't say anything about the Aaron Schatz tweet. Why is that?

Yeah, but that's not answering the point you replied to. He said they're rounding into shape in the last four or five games. Think if we looked at plays allowed/drive, yards allowed/drive and points allowed/drive over the last few weeks they'd be 26th, 24th and 25th in the league? 114 points allowed in the last five games, and that includes the Seahawks, Cards and Chargers. Think that's somewhere in the mid-twenties in rank? Ten defensive turnovers in the last five games. Think that's below average? 355.8 YPG during that time, which is 17th. And yeah, "they have allowed 30+ points in 2 of their last 3 games. Allowed 400+ yards in 2 of their last 3 games," as you say. Think that might have something to do with their last three games being against the Seahawks, Cardinals and Chargers? They're look like they're coming around.