Thurman#1

I didn't just look at the drive charts for that Ravens game. I looked at the play-by-play. Every single play. And then I read your post. And it said a lot more about your point of view than it did about that game. Your argument doesn't hold up. Take out that 38-yarder and Singletary had a really bad game. Now, it's not fair to take out whatever play you don't like ... but that 38 yarder didn't happen till about halfway through the 4th quarter (specifically, 8:47 remaining in the 4th, down by 15). So right up until then, he'd gone 13 for 52 and nearly all of those 52 came on that one drive. Outside of that he'd been completely contained. And after that big 38 yarder seemed to indicate they might have success running him? Three carries for -1. You look at the one productive drive he had ... exactly one and no more ... and you say that in your view this drive proved that the run game will work if you commit to it. You can't back that contention up. I'd argue that's confirmation bias. You ignore the rest of the game and look at the one time he was successful. That didn't prove squat. Ups and downs is how things work in life. One short success doesn't prove things will work. Only thing it proves is that things CAN work ... under certain circumstances. Till that one drive, they'd run Singletary three times, for 1 yard, for 5 yards and for -2 yards. Three runs for a total of four yards. Then the drive on which he was successful. The first play was for six yards. Then three, then eight, then three, then 14, then 9, then -1. That didn't show that if you commit to it, he'll succeed. Just the opposite. The first play on that drive was successful, far before they "committed" to using him. If anything, that showed that if he was successful, they'd commit to continuing to use him. Most likely the Ravens tried a defensive variation that the Bills liked Singletary against, or the Bills tried a variation to work Singletary that the Ravens couldn't handle. And when things worked, they continued running him. After that drive, though, Singletary's next run went for two. Hmm. His next was for one and the one after that was for -2. Not surprisingly, they didn't run him consistently after that. When he was successful, they handed it to him. When he wasn't, they didn't. This makes a lot of sense. Most likely the Ravens adjusted after that good drive to work much harder on taking Singletary away, and they were successful till late in the game and prevent defense time. You say, "As we all know, that usually, the more a team runs the ball the better the RB does over the course of the game." We don't all know that, by any means. It's a pretty common thought, but it's likely a great example of the logical problem of confusing correlation with cause. More, where are the numbers that even show correlation? It's a common cliche, but what's real is that sometimes that's true and sometimes it's not. And that if there is some correlation, it's probably more result than cause ... if a guy's having success early, he's likely to get it a lot late, and if a team's winning, they're more likely to run the ball late to burn clock. Singletary was underused and Gore was overused all season? Yeah, fair enough, that's a very reasonable feeling. This FO absolutely loved Gore. And late in the season it got hard to see why when you looked at his production. But in terms of the OL, well, yeah they looked bad, but the Ravens D was killing everyone, all year, especially when they were able to take away the run and make teams one-dimensional, which they mostly did in this game. Again, more than half of Singletary's carries went for two yards or less. Any OC is going to be affected by a lack of success like that. And up till that long run near the end of the game, it was even worse. Anyway, I've said enough on this. Nice to talk to you.

I'd disagree. He processes well plenty of times. Just not as consistently as you'd like. Which is not uncommon for a guy as young as him. A lot of what we call processing comes about when you have the correct inputs, which often come from knowledge that comes from experience. I'm not convinced on Allen yet, but definitely hopeful and convinced he's got a chance.

No. Brown's cheaper, younger and not injury prone. The difference in salary alone would not be worth the difference in production even if Green stayed healthy.

Yeah, this.

I said no holes for starters and I still think it's true. But the more I think the more I believe the closest thing we have to a hole is big nickel.

Yup. This. The beer vendors, maybe. They'll stair-climb their way into fitness.

Yeah, I hear you that his time to throw was high. I'm saying that a lot of that was on him because he tends to hang onto the ball and look for longer plays. And that when you do that you are basically accepting that you'll get pressure while also possibly getting the chance to make a longer play. Which he sometimes did and sometimes didn't, but which makes the line look bad in terms of the tim-to-throw stat for something that was not their fault. If Allen starts hitting the shorter timing routes instead of holding the ball, we'll likely see the average time go down, as it did this year. In 2018 he was worst in the league, well above 3 seconds per play. Oh, and yeah, it's details, details but I question how well the running game was working against the Ravens. Allen had two runs for nine yards. Gore was stymied. And Singletary's yards per carry look pretty good, but on his 17 carries he had only six went for four or more yards. He had the beautiful 38 yarder, and one really productive second quarter drive, but other than that he was really held in check. Four of his 17 runs were for negative yardage, that's nearly a quarter of his runs. And eight of his 17 runs (more than half) were for two yards or less. And I believe you that the best pass rushing teams got in his face often. They do that to everyone. That's why they're the best pass rushing teams. As for what will happen after this year, I suppose major changes are possible. Dawkins could demand too much money and force his way out of town, though he's a fine player. And while I'm hopeful, it's possible we don't even have one right tackle, never mind two. IMO, though, if RT doesn't look good, that would result in Ford moving to guard and if he replaces someone, my guess is they wouldn't need to make more changes. If Ford succeeds, I could see one of the two guards being replaced from the draft or FA. Maybe two but I doubt it. This line is above average. Far from great, though, but they might easily get better just from Ford figuring things out, Nsekhe staying healthy and from increased familiarity. And no, I'm not satisfied with above average. I'd like to see excellence. But I'm also not unhappy with this o-line. My guess is they'll work towards excellence, on the OL and at every position group.

And John Elway. And Fran Tarkenton. And Steve Young. Steve McNair. Donovan McNabb. Aaron Rodgers. The Amish Rifle could and did run and it hasn't come back to haunt him. And plenty of other recent guys who can run who didn't stay in the league because they weren't good enough, rather than because their running caused them injury problems. Kaepernick. Bottles. Gerrard. Mariota seems headed in that direction. There are plenty of running QBs who had long healthy careers. That's a fact. Also plenty of running QBs who didn't. Also a fact. But what you said was, "Cam Newton has proved that running QB's don't last in this league." He didn't do that. What he did was provide an example of a guy with tremendous potential whose career does indeed seem to have been harmed by physical damage, a lot of which was caused by running. Fair enough. He's a reasonable argument. He certainly hasn't proved that running QBs don't last. And I do remember losing out on La'el Collins. I was pissed. Do you really think that this F.O. wouldn't have tried to get him on the roster? I think they would have.

He's better than decent, he's very good. Not great. But very good LTs are what you should have to protect your QB, and they aren't all that common. IMO they'll try hard to get him back, but won't be held hostage. If he expects top three or four money, they might easily draft an LT high next year. People who think he's just good, as in pretty much average, are underrating him. For example, the only place we did better last year than over left tackle in terms of yardage was around right end. Over left tackle, behind Dawkins, we got 4.59 ALY (see Football Outsiders where this data comes from), which is 10th in the league, which is far better than decent.

Yup, He was pressured a lot. He was also one of the QBs who held the ball longest, as ranked from quickest to slowest, he was 29th, as per Next Gen Stats. It's not difficult to see that there is likely to be a bit of correlation there. Hold the ball longer and you make the job of the OL harder. In fairness it goes the other way too. This OL wasn't bad by any means. But equally they sure weren't great. What they were was professional. Slightly above average, possibly? Hopefully they'll be better this year with a year together under their belts to gel and perhaps someone beating someone else out by playing better. We don't have any journeymen as starters. You're right, though that we also don't have any All-Pros. But I'd argue that Rex lucked into Incognito as he was available cheap. Credit to him for reaching out to Richie, but if Incognito hadn't lost it, he'd likely still be here. This regime loved having him till it became impracticable. Can you point out any Richie Incognitos out there for being picked up? I can't. But Cam Newton didn't prove that running QBs don't last in this league. He proved that some running QBs don't last in this league. All you have to do is look at Russell Wilson to see that it's possible to last. But fair enough that it can be dangerous.

We have no real holes, positions where the starter is significantly below NFL standard. But that's not all you need to win a title. You need impact players, in particular at impact positions. You need to either have few injuries or great depth. Our depth is very good but injuries could still drag us down. You need good strategy. And you need the players to play together synergistically. And you greatly increase your chances of getting a title when you have a QB playing at a top ten or twelve in the league kind of standard. As for real holes, though, no, I don't think we do.

Hodgins isn't going to make the team? IMO he's got a strong chance. And if he doesn't, could easily be a practice squad guy. Don't count any of them out. Beane has a history of trading guys for picks in August, and that means other guys get a shot that maybe they wouldn't have been expected to get. Cardale Jones, Reggie Ragland, AJ Mccarran, Russell Bodine and Wyatt Teller. Doing that, trading guys who have a shot, opens up spots for others. IMO it's possible all three make the roster, though the odds are against it. But I think two is very possible. Here's that great article on his "cornering his own comp pick market." https://www.rochesterfirst.com/sports/buffalo-bills/is-brandon-beane-cornering-his-own-comp-pick-market/

I like the picks. But it's not foresight. They chose the guy who was highest on their board each time. They've made that clear. If you want to call going BPA foresight, well, I guess in a way you can say that. But the specific guys weren't picked so much for strategic purposes as to raise the level of talent. And I do love this F.O. But the strategic moves purpose-driven, tend to come in free agency.

IMO in a good system he can be a good starter. Remember that one year? This year, the Pats aren't going to have a good offence. But if they sign him and put some skill players around him he could be very good, I think.

Yeah. Dopey idea. Like Brady is famous for backing away from competition

He slid feet-first about four or five times in your video. Without counting, it looked like he went helmet-first just as much, and that's dangerous. And he still took a few big hits. And a bunch that were actually fairly good hits but Josh is so big he can stay up and look as if he wasn't affected. As successful as called QB runs can be with him, I'd like to see them reduced more and more. He did handle runs better last year, avoiding contact better. Needs to do so even better.

We're pretending we know what he is angry about and that it's purely the size of the offer. And that's likely not true. How did they handle it? Did spiteful things get said? Did he thing they should've tried to give him the same offer this year as he did last year? Did they just have a bad relationship? Was the offer written on toilet paper? Did they sit him down man-to-man and explain that they wanted him, that they like him, but that it was a business decision? Or did they not? I can't imagine him - reasonably - being angry for the offer after he had to sign after he got less elsewhere. But there's plenty of other possible reasons he could feel angry. Ah, I didn't need to say anything, you'd already said it. Exactly. I have no problem with the idea. But whatever rule you put in place, smart teams are going to find ways to use the system better than the dumb teams. Law of nature. Thank goodness we've become one of the smart teams.

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/ They have probably the best stuff on this, stats-wise. Click on "Statistics" and then "Offensive Lines". Their pass stats have the same problems they all have ... some QBs keep plays alive longer, hold the ball longer, others get it out quickly, and there's no statistical way to take that out of it. But their run stats are useful. Particularly comparing "Adjusted Line Yards" and "RB Yards." If RB yards are significantly higher than ALY, then you've got a good RB making his line look better than they are. If ALY is higher, your line is doing better than what is showing up in the standard stats. Second level yards is also helpful. In the end, though, lines have to be judged in context.

No offense, but you have no idea what Fromm is. You might be right. Equally, though, you might be totally wrong. As with most things about new draftees, we'll just have to see. And that last sentence is nonsense. There are a million ways to push a guy, you certainly don't need to start a QB competition to do so. What you do by starting a QB competition this early isn't "pushing a guy." It's demonstrating that you're not confident in him. It's often the kiss of death. When you have two quarterbacks, you don't have any, is the old saying, and that's exactly what you're telling the guy by bringing in someone like that, that you think maybe you don't have a QB. There's a time and a place for that. After the third year is absolutely not that time and place. How well did it work for the Chargers when they drafted Philip Rivers after Brees' third year was a disappointment. Eli Manning's third year was a bit of a disappointment. Did they bring in competition? Or did they correctly understand that they just didn't yet know, and find out the happy news very late in his 4th season when the light came on without a QB competition. They would absolutely bring in somebody who they feel can be an injury replacement, a Fitz type, or maybe they think Fromm or Barkley fills that need. But competition? You're kidding yourself unless he absolutely falls apart. If that happens, everything's up in the air, but IMO a serious regression is unlikely. There simply aren't a lot of great examples of teams spending heavily on a top ten QB, bringing in an expensive FA potential starter after the youngster's third year ... and good things happening.

That would not make sense. After the fourth year, well, maybe, depending how bad years three and four were. After three, though, you still make it clear it's his job to lose, while keeping Fromm here and learning as long as he appears to be coming along. Fromm should be his competition. You don't start a competition unless there's a significant back-slide. Winston's actually a good case study. Four years and a bit of a back-slide and who did they bring in? Fitz was there and they kept him. And you know Fitz isn't going to be your QB of the future. After his fifth year and a back-slide, pffft, Winston's gone. They didn't bring Brady in after Winston's third year, though. It was his fifth.

The offense and play-calling have been fine. They've looked great when Allen played well and not very good when he started making bad decisions. Team fans typically would rather blame a coach than a QB, whether or not it makes sense. In this case, it doesn't make much sense. It's not a mistake that he got interviews last time around. Outside Buffalo fandom, Daboll has great respect around the league. If Daboll starts making awful mistakes, he should certainly be blamed, but the worry is about Allen, and yeah, as House says above, there's some pressure on the OL as well.

Thanks for all the work getting the links. But if I can insert a small pet peeve? It isn't NFL.com who made that list. Nor do they stand behind it. They'll have probably ten other guys writing stories about the same thing. These aren't meant to be what the outlets think. They are the opinions of the writers. That wasn't NFL.com's opinion. It was Chad Reuter's opinion. And yeah, it would make total sense to say something like, "NFL.com's Chad Reuter: ". That kind of thing. But not just the outlet. When Trump (or previously Obama) speaks, you don't say, "America says ...". A few of them say, "We ranked ..." and hey, for those it makes sense.

BPA and the phrase you use, BVA are the same thing. Mathematically speaking, if a guy is the best value available, that means he's the BPA, definitionally. I'm not sure I understand how there could be any difference. And when you said that Beane had said "they had a higher rated player on the board at one point and took someone else," I thought, "Gee, I never heard that, I'd better go back and listen again." And he actually never said that. He said that in four of seven cases they took the highest rated guy. But he also said that in one specific case they had two guys rated equally and took the one because the other was at a position that was already strong so his chances of making the team were lower. That leaves two more, and he never made clear whether the other cases were just cases of having guys equal or not. They may have been. It sure sounded like he was saying that if they in fact weren't equal then they were extremely close. Certainly I agree that if guys are equal or virtually equal you should make strategic decisions factoring in such things as position strength, position depth and that kind of thing as part of your thought process on who to pick. I do see some similarities. For me, when I look at Dane Jackson tackling, I see a more violent Antoine Winfield (the pop, I don't know the son well).

Worth taking a flier on.