Thurman#1

While I do enjoy talking to you, I disagree completely that it's mostly about the coach. I think we disagreed back then about Tyrod (you said after that first year that Tyrod didn't need to improve to be considered a franchise QB, that he was there, and I said that he really wasn't, that the Pats had figured him out and after that so had everyone else, that his present arc was what he'd done the last seven games or so and that that wasn't good enough and that unless we saw major improvement from him he wouldn't be around long). We've also consistently disagreed about what we're talking about now, your belief that football is about the coach. I think it's far more about the GM and the roster he puts together. And while I still don't mind the Benjamin move all that much for the reasons you state, it was a third round pick they spent on him and that's a real loss. That was a failure, a 3rd and $8+ mill in dead money the next year because the Panthers had picked up his option and we ended up inheriting that. It's true that they don't make the playoffs in 2017 without Benjamin. His catches won two games for them if I remember correctly. But me, I didn't care whether they made the playoffs or not that year. It was wildly obvious to me that even if they made the playoffs they weren't going to do damage there. I'd rather have had a higher pick the next year. It was nice for Kyle Williams, though, that was good to see. And it was nice for some people who really felt the drought hanging over their heads, I guess. I'm a long-range guy, though, every time. Nothing matters to me except the future till the team is legitimately title-competitive. Can't believe there's a pretty decent chance that that day is finally here. Agreed, though, that the Benjamin move wasn't the horrible failure people talk about it as. It was a smaller failure. IMO the fact that that's one of Beane's worst decisions is a terrific sign. Everyone fails. If your worst screw-ups are only that size, though, you're doing very well indeed.

Nice. Yes.

Good stuff, Thank you.

Blew up in their faces? Just the opposite. They've been moving towards this. The guys you cite as bringing in vets that they were comfortable with ... the guys like Ivory, Joe Webb, Tolbert, Derek Anderson, even Vontae Davis, (who couldn't have been predicted to quit ... I mean it's not like folks on here were saying when they signed him, "Vontae Davis, he's a quitter. He'll let us down." That was unpredictable.) were low-cost guys. They were brought in to fill positions during seasons when the Bills were forced to deal with the Whaley salary cap problems by making it a priority to get the cap under control. Tolbert's contract was less than $1M for his one year. Same with Kerley, Webb I suppose you can say Ivory underperformed a bit but he wasn't highly paid. None of them were. I think we can all agree that the Kelvin Benjamin move sure didn't work out. But you seem to be saying - am I wrong? - that the Dareus, Watkins, Darby, Glenn and Ragland moves blew up in their faces, and that makes no sense to me whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that Watkins and Dareus are now making less than half of what the Bills were paying them. Darby's been OK but the Bills haven't missed him, they've done well with cheaper fill-ins performing well. Ragland's now earning $1 mill on a one-year contract and is a guy who didn't fit the scheme, as showed by the very different type of LB that we've used under McD. Those moves made sense in every way, particularly as cap-savers and having brought in draft capital for acquiring Josh and, as it turned out, Edmunds too. Mathews was injured, that might've worked out if he hadn't been, he was on a very cheap contract. They were doing a near-complete rebuild and at the same time having to completely revamp their cap status. Doing that and still making the playoffs twice in three years was a near-miracle. Agreed that the Bills have always stressed character. But I'd argue that previous regimes didn't commit to it as strongly as this regime has. This group has brought in a ton of that kind of guy to build their locker room chemistry in that mold. As has been pointed out ad infinitum, there's one at every position group. Older regimes didn't commit that seriously to that. For me the differences are that McDermott has a much more detailed, smarter plan and had it from the beginning, that that plan included a rebuild and bringing in a QB with a realistic chance to be a franchise guy, and yeah I agree with you that a lot of the rest is that they simply have a far more talented roster than they've had since maybe 2004 or probably even back to the Levy days. Beane has been a revelation.

I disagree with that. Bad coaching can lose games and limit what talent can do. Good coaching allows talent to play to the limits of their ability. But it's mostly about talent and the players. This is indeed a well-coached team but they were that for all of the last three years. The difference is that they're now a well-GM'd team and that GM has finally put together the roster they've been working towards. Pundits had the Bills just about exactly right last year, good enough to play well especially with a weaker schedule but not good enough to seriously compete. The roster wasn't good enough. And IMO they've got them right this year too ... they've got the roster to compete, to win in the playoffs, to be among the top few teams ... all dependent on how well Allen plays. They've finally got the roster, and it's been a long long time since we could say that.

I get the cheating thing totally, though I've always felt that most of that's on the FO rather than Brady, with the exception of the ball pressure thing, of which he was pretty clearly guilty. But as for tantrums, that's just a bad frame on what for a player we like would be called competitiveness or lighting a fire under their tails or keeping everyone committed, or getting in people's faces, and so on. You look at guys like Ed Reed or James Harrison or Lawrence Taylor or for that matter Jim Kelly. Think they didn't scream at people as much as Brady?

Based simply on what we've already seen of McDermott's record, it seems clear to me that you're wrong about this. They've put together a consistently excellent defense without stars, without spending much money. And that defense has driven this team. That's all McDermott. Well, some Leslie Frazier thrown in, maybe, but McDermott's scheme has paid off in overperformance with terrific consistency. His results are a lot better than acceptable so far, though I'd certainly agree with anyone who said he still has a lot to prove. I'm sure he'd agree.

Coaches don't have to be fiery. They have to be committed, but there are tons of wildly successful coaches who are low-key. Hell, Belichick is low-key. Landry, Nick Saban. They aren't screamers. They're workers. And so is McD. And as for why Hughes couldn't fill the role, it's because that's not who he is. Hughes is a talent, but we never hear much about him being a leader. He isn't that guy, and Murphy is. The role they are talking about is a role based not on production, but on personality, leadership and pure drive. That's, as was mentioned earlier in the thread, probably why they liked Gore and DiMarco so very much. Hughes doesn't appear to be that one guy at the position that this FO likes. Agreed. And, I'm guessing, Chris Kelsay, a guy who was loved by the coaches at the time just for these reasons.

Agreed. Great point.

Whenever someone posts one of those OBL links, I go there, hit the button and nothing happens. I do that a lot, and get the same result. Eventually I leave. Same thing happened yesterday.

What you decide he is or isn't allowed to be is 100% beside the point. It's what he actually is that is the only important thing. They're right that he needs to improve this year. They're also right that he's a project currently, and that's pretty likely to be an ongoing thing for a while. This was an excellent point from the article, "He doesn’t even have two full seasons worth of games under his belt at the NFL level. Allen has less games under his belt in the NFL than Baker Mayfield and Lamar Jackson had in college alone." That's a great observation. Mayfield played 48 games in college alone, and at a higher level, and then 30 in the pros, while Allen played in 27 games at a lower level at Wyoming, and seven before that at Reedley JUCO, an even lower level. Of course he's still developing. And yet with all that extra time and work behind him, Mayfield regressed and showed he needed development also. Fans want to deny that development may be needed because some guys don't need it. They say that because fans are impatient these days it's no longer time that guys are allowed. Not true. Some guys still need it. And the smarter teams go by the needs of the QB, no matter whether the fans get impatient. Fan impatience is totally understandable, but it's like getting mad at bad weather. Some years are good. Some aren't. Some QBs need time. Some don't. Aaron Rodgers, Alex Smith and Eli Manning are guys who needed time. And were given it. Eli for one didn't see the light come on till the last two or three games of his fourth year. Hell, Brady wasn't the player he's become till around 2005 - 2006. Some guys take time. If we're very very lucky, our guy will have made huge strides in the offseason and be past his development stage. But that's very unlikely, especially with how this offseason is, um, developing.

That's a shame. Lost and suggestible. Good luck to him. He needs it.

What you're doing there is framing. What they are doing is fair, just as fair as people trying to say that none of the drops go on Josh at all, just as fair as your saying that they're just "trying to explain away" something. Just as fair as that ridiculous video labelled "5 Minutes of Josh Allen Drops" that actually is a collection of drops, poor throws and defensed passes and a ton of instant replays and slo-mo replays taking up very significant amounts of the five minutes. Yup, plenty of drops in there, but equally several that absolutely weren't, though Kelvin Benjamin in particular comes off poorly. All are attempts to frame the data so it implies the result the writer/film editor has decided he wants. Allen does have a problem with rifling the ball in too hard even on short passes. He needs to work on touch, and I'm sure if you asked him he'd totally agree with that. And that affects the drops. How much? Impossible to say, really, but it absolutely does affect those numbers. He does seem to be improving, to my eyes at least. But he's got a ways to go. Plenty of rifle-armed QBs had that problem early in their careers and grew out of it, Elway for instance. Equally, though, some never learned. Allen is part of the reason for those numbers. Equally, though, the receivers are too. Plenty of real actual bad drops on display also. The tweet's been removed, so I can't see what the OP is about, unfortunately.

So, both guys say Josh Allen, and this offends you? Well, OK, I guess.

That's ridiculous. Guys whose ceiling is 67.5% while completing 8.0 YPA, who put up 4042 yards in 15 games, and racked up 26 TDs and 5 INTs are absolutely going to have teams wanting him. It'll absolutely depend on his health but he was a whole lot better than average, particularly at his ceiling but even a bit below it.

Yup, and you can say the same for the other 50 states with different nicknames. Meanwhile, I visit often and it's great. And the waterfront upgrade with the Big Dig finished has made it a lot more inviting than it used to be. And it used to be great. Not that the sports fans there aren't wildly entitled after their recent run of wild success. They are. But it's still a great city.

Dude, Boston rocks. The Pats cheat and are jerks, but Boston's a great city.

I disagree, strongly. But it remains a reasonable take From a New England-centric POV till one of the three AFC opponents proves themselves by bloodying the Pats nose. If I were a combative Pats fan I'd say much the same thing. The Bills still have a lot to prove. But this FO has showed itself smart since day one. They've made mistakes. But far fewer than most. Both have been popular forever. But the reason home team-bashing has been popular for about twenty years is that we've been mediocre on a level of consistency that was kind of remarkably sad. The people criticizing the Bills were dead right. Lately the Buffalo media has started to turn. Not because they're jumping on the bandwagon. Simply because McDermott and Beane look like they're getting it right. Acknowledging that makes sense.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001113206/article/2020-nfl-schedule-release-ranking-top-nine-primetime-games 3) Kansas City Chiefs at Buffalo Bills Week 6: Thursday, Oct. 15 at 8:20 p.m. ET on Fox/NFL Network/Amazon Patty Mahomes against Sean McDermott's defense in front of the amazing and passionate fans in lovely Western New York? Buckle up, buttercup! The scene in Buffalo is going to be wild, with the defending champs coming to town with the sun down and the juices flowing for Bills Mafia. I'm so excited I might jump through a table! This could be a playoff preview, too. I anticipate the Chiefs will win their fifth straight AFC West title. And yes, I expect the Bills to take the AFC East for the first time since 1995. Any time Mahomes is on in prime time -- with the electric Tyreek Hill and Travis Kelce by his side -- the viewing offers sizzle. Can't wait to see him go against a Bills defense that ranked second in points allowed and third in total D last season. But don't discount the undercard of Josh Allen, Stefon Diggs and Buffalo's revamped passing attack against Tyrann Mathieu, Frank Clark, Chris Jones and the rest of K.C.'s underrated championship defense. It's obviously a huge game for us, and Schein has bought in to the Bills the last couple of years. But it's nice to see that this game looks as good to non-fans as it does to us.

That and if you're doing something you're not proud of, and your brother's there, and you see him on Snapchat apparently posting pictures with women and the address ... maybe tell him to put his phone in the Yondr pouch. Or much much better yet, stay home and hang with the kids.

Win/loss is NOT a QB stat. It just isn't. It's a team stat, and to remind people again, the actual name of the stat is, "TEAM Wins in Games Started By This QB (Regular Season)." (My caps.) Team wins.You judge a QB by how well he performs his QB duties, not by whether a K hits or misses a field goal or by whether the defense sucks or excels. Taking out a guy's best years and looking at what's left isn't a fair way to judge his performance either. And Cassel isn't a bum, he's a game manager who won't be explosive, but also throws too many INTs to be a really good game manager. And in any case, it's very much worth noting that the Pats went 10-5 in games Cassel started, NE had an unbelievably easy schedule.

That's my best guess, 8 or 9 wins. Now, anyway. Belichick defenses have long showed form in being top defenses even when they lose guys who appear indispensable such as Richard Seymour. A lot of their success comes down to multiplicity and unpredictability. Guys like Beau Allen, JC Jackson and Adrian Phillips just suddenly seem to become good somehow in Belichick defenses. They're wildly unlikely to be as good on D as they were last year but I don't expect them to regress as much as many expect. On offense, though, Scarnecchia and Brady are going to be huge losses and I do expect major regression there.

While I agree with you that Beane is in no way - yet - top three, you are drastically undervaluing the importance of excellent cap management. Which is most important, a good roster or good cap management? If you want your team to be not just competitive for a year or two, but competitive in the long term, consistently ... they're both necessary. An awful lot of the reason Belichick has been able to field competitive teams year after year after year is Tom Brady and his defensive game-planning, and an awful lot more is how he husbands every single cap dollar year after year after year, getting rid of expensive guys when they hold out for what value they can get elsewhere, letting good players go early so he'll never waste a cap dollar on a guy past his prime, and consistently spending less than other teams do on various position groups that other teams throw dollars at. He's got a magnifying glass on this at all times, as do all of the consistently competitive teams, except maybe the Saints. Cap space is huge. Sure, it means nothing with a crappy roster, but if you can be competitive and still have cap space, you can become one of those teams that's nearly always good. And the Eagles have shown themselves over the years at being really good at handling the cap. But they have low-first-year-base-salaried themselves into cap trouble now, and it's coming back to bite them. They haven't really been able to fill holes this year, largely because of their cap situation. I suspect Roseman will learn a lesson from this going forward. Till now, he's always Agree with you on pretty much the first six or seven GMs you cited. They've proven excellence. Maybe Beane will be a top three guy some day, maybe even soon. But he's got more to prove. And I do really really like this brain trust, both guys, an awful lot.

IMO, a bad article, for two main reasons. First, there's an article based on the exact same idea, with pretty much the same evidence, written by Thad Brown, called "Is Brandon Beane Cornering His Own Comp Pick Market?". Posted on March 30th, about a week ago. And the new article never mentions it. https://www.rochesterfirst.com/sports/buffalo-bills/is-brandon-beane-cornering-his-own-comp-pick-market/ And second because unlike the first article, the new one puts down the idea of getting actual comp picks, as if it's a bad idea. Implies that Beane thinks so too. And clearly, Beane doesn't, and has said in no uncertain terms that he thinks aiming for comp picks is important and that as soon as possible, he'll be planning to get them. He knows that comp picks are smart. So why hasn't he gotten any yet? Because comp picks come mostly in the mature stage of the life cycle of a team. When you're rebuilding, you need to bring in FAs to fill your most urgent holes. It's teams that have good solid veteran cores and depth that tend to accumulate comp picks. The Pats are absolute comp pick masters, they accumulate them year after year, but if you go back to Belichick's first three or four years, not so much. Ravens, too. It was too early in the life cycle of this team to pick up a lot of comp picks. And while Beane's method here is really nice, very smart ... it's not a replacement for comp picks. It's an excellent way to supplement them.

Those seem pretty reasonable to me. I'd put Hodgins higher, maybe 50 - 60%, and also Jackson, maybe at 25 - 30%. Those are quibbles, though.