Thurman#1

Yeah, JP Losman. And also Josh Allen early in his career. If you don't think Allen is in a wildly better situation now than he was as a rookie, and that that has been a huge help to him, I don't know what to tell you. Put this year's Josh Allen onto the 2018 Bills team and he'd still be good, but throwing to Zay Jones, Kelvin Benjamin and Robert Foster behind the protection of a Dawkins-Ducasse-Bodine-John Miller-Jordan Mills OL, he'd be nowhere near as good as he is now. The reason people are making those excuses for Darnold is that doing so makes sense. It's the smart thing to think. Coaching and situations can destroy QBs. That's a thing. David Carr is the best example, but there are plenty of others. Tannehill could never amount to anything in Miami, and with a coach who put in a system that fit him, voila. And Losman isn't a bad example, actually. They took him from a situation where he was actually starting to do well and look pretty good in a gun-slinger's offense in 2006 and they fired the OC and brought in Fairchild who ran a dink-and-dunk timing offense that was a complete mismatch for Losman's abilities. It's not clear he would ever have been a success, but if he had had a chance, bringing in Fairchild destroyed it.

Nah. Bridgewater has a functioning o-line protecting him. Darnold does not. Not that that o-line is good, it's not especially, but it's far more functional than the one in the Meadowlands. Darnold's in an awful position, and will be better elsewhere as his career progresses. Also, having DJ Moore opposite you will draw more safeties away from a guy than having Breshad Perriman. Darnold will be better, but how much better is still a legit question.

Yeah, I think it's clear that the "we" was the coaching staff. He was taking responsibility. One of the few things he's done there I've respected.

Dude, please. You say his unamortized bonus made it untenable to release him outright. Not true. He'd have cost them $7.8M in dead money. More, they could have spread that over two years. And his original contract called for $6.25M and he was due a roster bonus of $500K. In other words, they would have lost about $1 million overall. That was very very far from untenable when they did the new deal on February 11th. They still had about $80 mill on the cap at that point. So to say that it was untenable to cut him is simply untrue. Not only was it tenable, it would have actually saved them money that first year if they'd cut him after the deadline. The reason they didn't cut him was the simplest in the world, they wanted to keep him. So your argument is that they didn't want to lose $1 million by releasing him ... so their way of handling that was to give him yet more guaranteed, making him yet harder to cut. Sorry, dude, it simply doesn't make sense in any world. If you want to cut a guy, you don't give him a longer guarantee, not if your brain is larger than a lentil. And you are greatly misquoting Feliciano when you say that Star opted out because his pay was guaranteed. Nonsense. Was that a factor? Sure, maybe. Know what the major factor was? I'll give you a hint, it has killed 250,000 Americans and it's still going. Let's see a link to where Feliciano says the reason he opted out was because his pay was guaranteed. "A league where there isn't really such a thing as a running down anymore" you say? Yeah, fair enough. Ask Tennessee when their running downs are. First, second, third and fourth downs. Yes, passing is the priority. But you act as if this is something new. It's very far from new. It's been so for about 20 years now, and it certainly was true when they signed Star to that $50m contract. Last year the team with the lowest pass percentage was passing around 42.5% of the time (Ravens) and the highest pass percentage was 65.4% (Falcons), with the average and median about 57%. This year 46.0% for the lowest passing percentage (Ravens) and the highest is 64.9% (Bears). Median and average are both, again, about 67%. There has been very little change. Yes, passing is the priority. Has been for years and years. But if you abandon run defense, the good teams will be thrilled to say, "Hey, thanks for the free six yards. We'll take that all day." That's what Kansas City did to us. Remind me, what down was the running down for the Chiefs against us when they rushed 46 times? You're missing the point on Star. A guy like Star is precisely what you need if you want to commit most of your resources to the passing game. Commit them all to the passing game and you watch the pitiful Patriots offense run us over and nearly win the game. If Star is there, he makes it much tougher to run so you can then use the rest of your front four guys who are lighter and better at pass defense and yet still be decent at stopping the run. No Star and teams can just bully their way down the field until you have to start using eight man boxes and then they go back to the pass. You need a guy like Star on downs when they can run or pass. With him in there, he's destructive enough against the run that your otherwise light front can handle it. When you know they'll pass you yank him out. Suggesting that you "get your DT's to do the 1T dirty work in small doses and in return for good work give them one-gap reps," ignores the fact that none of them are good at space-eating. Zimmer appears to be about the best we have and he's not good.

Yeah, you're right they didn't do anything to get a second big 1-tech. There seems to be an extremely obvious reason for that ... Star opted out on July 28th. There are very few guys who can do what Lotulelei does, and they were all gone. They don't just need a big guy, they need a big guy who's a space-eater and a good one. Nobody was out there, and particularly not as they had already spent most of their cap this year. And cap is even more important this year with next year being a year where the cap ceiling will drop so much. Yeah, they're taking a different approach, as that's their only realistic choice this year. They've always played eight deep, that's nothing new, that's McD's modus operandi, and yet he still brought in Star and then guaranteed his salary for another year and a half well before he opted out. Star (or someone fulfilling the same function) is precisely the guy who lets McDermott set up most of the rest of the defense to attack the opponent's passing offenses. And as for not having a backup Lotulelei, it's not un-Beanelike. It's what they did in Carolina as well. They have another guy to rotate in, but he's not someone they spend much money or draft capital on. It's the way they operate. For most of his time in Carolina his backups were guys like Micanor Regis and Colin Cole.

It's funny how when people talk about their "cutting Star's pay," they never talk about the fact that they also guaranteed his salary for a season and a half. They also never talk about how much the cut in pay amounted to ... which is that in a $50 million five-year contract they cut his pay by $1,750,000, total. In combination with guaranteeing an extra year and a half, that is pretty much the opposite of saying they don't need Star. They committed to him. Yeah, they cut Vincent Taylor. Likely because he wasn't good enough. And yeah they added Zimmer, who's undersized. There weren't any good huge 1-techs available at that point, and especially not when we were already running on vapor in terms of the cap. Yeah, they played 6 guys in the box at KC. And you somehow think that didn't have everything to do with prioritizing stopping KC's pass game? Really? That shows a profound misunderstanding, honestly. KC saw what we were doing and said, "Fine, fine. Thanks, we'll just hammer the ball through the light middle of your DL. Thanks, guys." Not having Star in that game made it easy for them to run, and they took full and complete advantage. And yeah, they prioritize pass defense. That's not something new. It's precisely what McDermott's defense has always done. Having a Lotulelei in the middle greatly helps balance that out so teams can't just do what New England and KC did in response. He's the weight in the middle that allows them to have the rest be lighter and prioritize pass defense. When they get an excellent 1-tech space-eater back next year in Star, one who they've already committed to in the long-term, they'll be very happy indeed.

They blitzed a ton against the rookie QB last week. Against Murray and Wilson, not so much. Blitzing isn't the change, I don't think. It's just something they look at game to game. Unpredictable fronts, overload rushes, interesting variations on rushes, yes. Looks to me like they've just gotten healthier and figured out better how to work together and blend the newer guys in.

No. Could they get there theoretically if they peak at the right time? Sure. But better now? No way. Dr. Z picked them as champions in S.I. before the playoffs that first year, the year the Pats went 19-0. Their defense had just become healthy. In their last game they had played the best game anyone had played against the Pats all year long, just barely losing 38 - 35, when nobody else had scored more than 28 against NE that year. I haven't the slightest doubt they thought they had an excellent chance.

Nonsense. You say, "when it finally has reached the point where it is the identity of a perennial playoff franchise ...", dude, please. A "perennial playoff franchise" doesn't make the playoffs in two of the previous five years. Worse, both times they made it, they lost in the wild card game. I liked Ted Washington a lot too, but they were a team without a quarterback. And it's not like they didn't build a terrific defense, and quick. They did. By 2003 they were excellent on D and DVOA has the 2004 Bills as one of the top ten defenses of all time. What they didn't do was bring in a quarterback.

In one sentence, maybe that's close to the best that can be done. The best teams are nearly always the best drafters. One problem that I see in this thread - having read only the first and last pages - is that it's not clear whether we're talking about now or over the long term. Over the long term you're often looking at guys who aren't there anymore. Ozzie is gone. How good are the new Ravens guys going to be? Hard to be sure, really. Are you looking at the guys who are in control around the league now? If so, many to most are too new to say with much surety. Beane looks significantly above average but not elite (the 2017 draft looks very strong with three foundational guys but no Beane, the 2018 also looks good with two foundational guys, one guy who appears to be foundational for Cleveland, in Teller, and the 3rd and 4th rounders not clear yet in Harrison and Taron Johnson, the 2019 draft looking pretty good so far with Oliver, Ford and Singletary good bargains, Knox underachieving so far but with potential and the two Johnsons and Sweeney looking solid, and the 2020 group looking OK to good so far for a draft without a 1st rounder but really it's too early to know) but it's hard to say for sure. People want to avoid the obvious ... that you can't really judge thoroughly without waiting for three years or so. And Beane's first draft was two and a half years ago.

Like hell he looked like Star. Star is vastly better at what McDermott needs from a 1-tech. Before the injury Harry looked like he eventually could be a good one, maybe. Since the injury, not close. None of the 1-techs we have are anywhere near as good as Star at keeping the blockers off the LBs.

Agreed that both guys are moving to the middle. But (at least Lombardi thinks that ...) there are certain parts of how they each work that they can't surrender on, that can't be compromised, and that these incongruent world views won't allow them to work together successfully. I think he's got an interesting point. Maybe they can work it out. But maybe not.

Yup. The other thing the OP (dopily) said was giving a list of great coaches. Out of his list, one had won a Super Bowl in his first three years, one, (Belichick first won one in year seven, after five years in Cleveland. Tomlin was the only one) and Tomlin was taking over a team that had won a Super Bowl two years earlier under Cowher. This thread is wooden-headed.

I suspect your depression may spring instead from an unconscious realization of your own limitations in terms of ability to start threads that are worth a crap. Just my two cents.

That quote is from the books. Yeah, the movie used it, but that's Frank Herbert. EDIT: Ah, someone beat me to it.

The thing about him choosing the plays he likes is about constructing the playbook. It's still Arians making the calls and deciding when all of these plays they like get called. Brady doesn't mind throwing long sometimes. But when ... that's the rub. Arians calls them a lot more than Brady likes, and at times when Brady would rather burn clock and play careful. Again, he didn't say this was all Arians' fault. He said they can't work together, and that from Brady"s perspective those were the wrong calls.

That whooshing sound? It was the point shooting by while you were typing.

IMO, it's far more bad luck. I mean, sure, you talk to them about it and you practice more, but the thing about Hail Marys is that they are only successful somewhere around 5% of the time. And sometimes a 5% chance will happen twice in a row, particularly when Arizona was throwing to maybe the best in-the-air ball winner in the league in Hopkins. With him there it's probably 10% or 15% instead of five. I didn't see obvious bad execution on either play. If the Bills want them to approach things differently then they should absolutely tell them about it, but how would that even be a question. Of course they would do that. Heh heh.

Nice necro-bump. Should warn against knee-jerk reactions and also point out that it often takes more time than we think to see how well a guy can fit a system. However, it won't. Making conclusions too early here is widely prevalent.

Yeah, this. Not surprising, really. Look at how many 4th and ones we've seen an Allen sneak be successful. Look at the top of the chart, "Expected win probability lost by kicking in go situations."

It is Arians' fault. Even if they had called Brady-type plays which had been unsuccessful as the Arians plays were, they would have burned the clock. The Bucs wouldn't have scored but they would have greatly lowered the chances of the opponents scoring. The Brady plays - a run or a short high-percentage pass on first down in this case - would have raised the possibility of a first down there as well. Arians' philosophy is that we'll score enough to make up for it, but if they don't - and they didn't - he's put the team in a bad situation.

He didn't know that the philosophical differences would prove such a big deal. Nor did Arians. Neither guy had been in this situation before, so they didn't know that working with a guy with philosophies that turn out to align so poorly would cause problems. And Lombardi isn't excusing either of the guys, or blaming either guy. He's simply saying they don't work well together. IMO, having read the whole article, he made his case. OP, thanks for posting it. I subscribe but look pretty much only at the Bills content.

Were you predicting the Fins loss to Denver? They could easily lose more than two. So could we of course, but it looks like so far we're just a better team. And yeah, the team should focus on immediate business. If the fans look ahead with imagination, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as we stay aware it's all guesswork anyway.

Why would anyone not think so? The power rankings all have them between about #5 and #9. Of course they're gearing up for it. How much they achieve is another matter, but outside the Steelers and Chiefs they're as good as any team in the conference.

You're reading too much in there. It just means you were behind or in danger of getting behind and pulled it out. It doesn't mean you were losing for much of the game or were outplayed. That's just you there. It certainly can be used in situations where you were outplayed and don't deserve to win. But also situations that are nothing like that.