Thurman#1

I doubt it. We'll see, but to me it looked like it was just being executed better. I think Taron's doing OK this season, but I also think the Bills were deeply disappointed the Pats drafted Kyle Dugger.

Fit the situation beautifully. Daboll knows they worry a lot about the sneak, and that pulls them in and compresses them. And now they can't compress quite as much next time. Sweet.

I'll guess it isn't this season, but I think you're right. Soon. Didn't realize that record had lasted so long. Amazing.

No other positives in Chiefs - Pats ... yet.

Yeah, the younger players have a lesser chance to get seriously ill. Thought about the ones with pre-existing conditions, though? And as has been talked about at length, one of the pre-existing conditions is obesity and probably a majority of linemen meet that figure, and no there's no particular reason to think that very strong but obese people will do better than weak but obese people. It's possible. Equally, might be irrelevant. Thought that these people have wives? Kids? Parents? Grand-parents and some maybe great-grandparents? Hairdressers, masseurs and masseuses, paper boys, grocery store cashiers and it just keeps on going and going. It isn't OK to say that if a young person gets it (and very possibly spreads it) it's OK because he might not die. I don't know what they should do, but I am absolutely positive that the argument that it's OK if they get COVID because they're young is a spectacularly bad one. Probably true, but the Players Association fought bubbles. They probably shouldn't have, but they did.

It absolutely is too early. But it's also too early to know who'll win this week's game and yet we're talking about it. And puh-lenty of people who thought over the last two years that the answer was that there was absolutely no way the Bill had NOT made a huge mistake ... posted here again and again ... a year or two ago on the same subject. I mean, you're right, it's too early. But by the time it's not, the discussion won't be very interesting anymore. Let's say Allen spends the rest of his career playing at exactly this level or just a tiny fraction lower. What's the answer then? IMO the Bills win.

I live in Japan. It's 2:50 a.m. here now and I'm going to bed.

I agree with Barnwell's take on this. Allen last year had a standard of play which didn't much help this team. Yeah, he was a positive factor in some games. Also a negative factor in others. Overall, it was the defense that made us a good team last year. This team has gone from 24th best offense last year to 5th best so far, with one major personnel change. And while Diggs is very good, he's not responsible for most of that leap. Allen's gigantic improvement is. Hindrance in 2018, Stay out of the way last year and driving the success this year? Yup. Right on target, IMO. DVOA agrees perfectly as well. 2018: passing -35.9%, running 33.3% 2019: passing -11.8%, running 6.5% They did say this: "Allen didn't start his second season very strong either. Although the Bills started 4-1, Allen had five touchdowns but seven interceptions. His entire performance worked out to -25% DVOA, a little better than his first season but still ranking Allen among the league's worst passers. "But that's not the Josh Allen we've seen since Buffalo's Week 6 bye. Starting in Week 7, Allen has 11 touchdowns with only one interception. He's also improved from 6.9 to 7.2 yards per attempt over the past seven games. Altogether, Allen has become an above-average quarterback since Buffalo's bye, with his 7% DVOA ranking him 16th in the league over that time." https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/story/_/id/28231408/the-rise-josh-allen-more-nfl-players-improving-declining Sixteenth in the league in passing last year leaving out the first five games. Just about smack-dab average among starters, not hurting but not much helping either. And while he got better after week 5, those first five games should factor in when you're talking about last year. This year is very very clearly different.

Thought it might be time to look again at that question. I searched "Mahomes" and didn't see this. If it's already been asked recently, Mods, please feel free to close the thread. But for a long time now people who aren't fans of McDermott have asked that question and assumed that the answer was an obvious no, and that blame was due this group. I know it's not clear yet that Allen will continue playing as well as he has. But at this point watching him it's very clear Josh has made major improvements and that there's a pretty good chance that he'll be a top ten QB for his career. So what does the group think now? Did trading the Mahomes pick to KC strengthen this team? How would you rather have, Mahomes or Josh and Tre? I'm leaning towards Josh and Tre.

Yeah, the word "tank" doesn't belong in football. Nor should it until the day of all-guaranteed contracts for players and coaches arrives. Yeah, GMs sometimes in a rebuild take moves that will hurt in the short run to help in the long run. But players and coaches all know that what they do is what their job performance will be judged on and that they may not be on the same team next year. There is no tanking in the NFL. Rebuilding happens, though, and it can be very painful indeed. The Jets are clearly doing that. The Jamal Adams trade made it painfully obvious that the Jets personnel department is already there. And I'm not defending the penalties, but that was a team trying as hard as they could to win.

When you have to go to people like Bomani, Geoff Schwartz, Ryan McCrystal and Dan Schneier to find really negative opinions before the draft, that kind of proves the point. Where are the Mike Mayocks, the Bucky Brookses, the Daniel Jeremiahs, the Mel Kipers, the McShays, the Zierliens, the Gil Brandts? I'm sure there were a few exceptions there too, but they were mostly giving variations on high ceiling / developmental guy / will take a lot of time / high character / not a sure thing but if he does achieve his potential he'll be terrific. Quick take from Gil Brandt: Brandt ... “I think he [Josh Allen] has the work ethic and the intelligence to do it. I think Allen has got unbelievable upside. Whenever you bet on potential a lot of times you get stuck, but I think he has the temperament. He has everything, if he can just get that ball to come out a little more accurately I think he has just unbelievable upside.” and Brandt ... “If you don’t need a quarterback to play …. I think Allen has the most upside of anybody.” https://www.bigblueview.com/2018/4/22/17268284/gil-brandt-wyoming-qb-josh-allen-has-hall-of-fame-potential-2018-nfl-draft-ny-giants-saquon-barkley

This. They didn't miss at all. They were exactly on the money. They knew he had a very very high ceiling but was a developmental guy, and that development is unpredictable. Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn't, but without question it takes time even if it works, and NFL teams would rather take a guy who will achieve his potential as soon as possible, all things being equal. There were some doubters, there always are, but the consensus was he'd be a first rounder, high ceiling, would take time if he did develop.

P. T. Barnum would have loved you.

I was thinking the same thing at that point. And when they got the ball it was, "OK, no 40 yard passes, Daboll. He'll complete them and we'll score and we must avoid doing that right now." People say "Fans love touchdowns," and sure, but part of the reason we like them is they're hard to get. Make 'em easier to get and fans will get less excited by each one. Defensive struggles are just as exciting as shootouts, IMO, as long as the scoring problems are caused by terrifically efficient defenses rather than crappy, inefficient offenses. What fans want is tension. How that tension comes about is less important than how much tension there is. It was noted above that ratings are down this year. Really? During the lockdown people are watching less football? They're screaming and begging for more and better entertainment they can consume at home without going out and they're watching less football? That is very much the opposite of a good sign. How come if they're scoring more TDs, people aren't watching more games? Maybe they've been looking at things wrong here.

It matters. Teams using different tactics will be affected differently by any change, this one included. Some teams will be less affected, some more. They'll all have to adjust but some will be more able to do so. Any change will give some teams an advantage.

Yes. And he also got his injury insurance earlier.

As usual, they're spinning the figures with extensions. Real money will be somewhere around 7 years $104 mill, which comes out to around $14.8M/ year. Tre if I remember got somewhere around $13.5M ...? But will receive a new contract a year earlier.

Hmm. Their facility is closed till further notice. Not sure how much of an advantage this will be. A bit of one, certainly. Not sure it'll be a major factor, though.

If and only if the defense starts playing much better than it has the past couple of games. Which could easily happen. But is certainly not a sure thing. And it's worth understanding that while Allen has taken a huge leap, part of the reason this offense is doing so very well is that it's functioning totally differently from how it did in the past. And due to no preseason, teams had even less tape than they usually do on units that have made major changes. As teams see more tape, they will better be able to attack our tendencies and weaknesses. Expect them to catch up some. It's not a mistake that QBs are doing historically well early this season, IMO. The lack of a preseason helped. Should be a very interesting year.

Yeah, reaches out with his right hand and Woods kind of runs right through it. Which shoulder was injured again? Oh, yeah, the right one. Gosh, hard to figure what happened there. Yeah, you certainly have.

Refusing to overpay for the other one was the only smart decision. He was certainly not especially effective against the run.

Filling a gap that nobody else was filling. That's nice play design by McVay, and Taron Johnson running into Epenesa and falling down. Not a good look for that whole side, really, but absolutely can't be blamed only on Edmunds, though with the shoulder he couldn't get off the block well at all. McD keeps saying this is about run fits. From this film, he's dead right, though the play was designed to be confusing and to mess up run fits and was successful.

He ... is ... injured. He was obviously favoring his shoulder later in the game. And yet he was not the worst on the field, nor terrible. Certainly not as good as he generally is, but as usual, using hyperbole just makes someone look unreasonable. Both your posts about him because of their exaggerated nature, just look kind of twisted.

Nonsense. Does he occasionally hit the wrong gap, particularly early in a year when there was little offseason work? Yeah. But he's been very very good as he develops through the years... when not injured. Joe points it out and it's there to be seen anyway. The injury obviously had an effect in that game, as anyone would expect. He'll be fine as he recovers physically and the defense plays together.

Do yourself a favor and go look at the snap counts. They're at footballoutsiders.com So, which Seattle defensive linemen last year had the most snaps? Throw in STs snaps and that would be Quinton Jefferson. OK, but take out STs snaps and count only DL reps? Clowney, with 624. Who was #2? Yup, that would be Quinton Jefferson with 602. So Clowney played 57% while Jefferson played 55%. More, Pro Football Reference says he started 12 of the 14 games he played last year with Seattle. I wouldn't call that not being able to "crack the starting lineup". I personally always had doubts about how he'd do as a 1-tech, but as a 3 and especially as a DE, I think he's going to be quite good here.