Thurman#1

Yeah, I would guess that it's both legal and very ineffective, and that the reason Oliver wouldn't do that is that the QB would then scramble away, that Oliver would be reducing the amount of force he was delivering by making that play.

The downside is that if you're punched in the chest when you're running you'll basically run right through the contact and keep going. You deliver less force by running the force vector up through a bunch of joints that aren't locked than you would by using a conventional tackle. Boxers in a typical fight will get punched a couple hundred times and more of them than not make it to the end anyway. Try getting tackled at high speed a couple hundred times in the length of time a prize fight takes. The reason tackles are taught the way they are is that it's the best and most violent way that's safest for the tackler.

Yeah, but on the game coverage they had another angle and you could see that Watt almost completely missed the ball. Would Allen have held on if he'd hit it on target? We'll never know. I think it's totally legal, but it's not very effective at knocking guys down, and that's why they don't do it unless they're trying to knock the ball out. Punching does a great job in making the area of contact small but a terrible job of delivering more total force. You deliver more total force by leading with a shoulder or a form tackle with your facemask.

The team that has been poor to average for a long time and is having a breakout season this year? The team that is really young and has a lot of guys on their way up? I see what you're saying, but that's not because of some unfairness. This is an extremely young team and the voters are just getting to know most of our players and teams with records like ours over the past four or five years don't tend to put a lot of guys in the Pro Bowl. This'll even out quickly now that we're winning and our guys are maturing.

Running more doesn't win games. Last year Buffalo was 29th and went 6-10. Some teams such as Seattle always prefer to run more, but others are just running the ball a lot down the stretch when way ahead, like New Orleans. Generally it's not so much that running teams win as it is that winning teams get ahead and then run. Or that some teams have QBs they're trying not to force feed and so they deliberately run more. That was Buffalo last year. And as for "being in good company" ... the Bills are running 53.32% of the time at #28, but the next five teams, all within 3 percentage points of the Bills look like this: 27. 6-8 Indy 54.17% 26. 8-6 Tennessee 54.27% 25. 6-8 Oakland 54.96% 24. 9-5 Houston 56.92% 23. 7-7 Dallas 57.54% Those aren't powerhouses.

Totally. That's why they've already got his successor on the roster. Stidham's completely ready to go to make Belichick's final years golden. Yup. Red flag generally meaning "Bizarre wrongness coming up fast."

Yeah, no. If he does get so discouraged he quits, it'll be from what happens in the playoffs.

On the contrary, cutting Fitzy made total sense at the time. He was due to make $11 mill in salary that year and they didn't want him to start and didn't want to pay a backup at that level. It was reported that they talked to him about keeping him by re-negotiating his salary down but he wasn't interested. Made sense to both parties. Fitzy wanted to start and probably knew that a team willing to start him would pay more than the Bills. Fair enough that there's "space between terrible and Super Bowl caliber franchise QB." Very true, and Fitzy does indeed come in between those two and further away from terrible. Great guy, I wish he were a better QB.

For a QB who can't throw past 10 yards, his YPA is still higher than Allen's. Being held ineffective by our defense isn't something that only happens to UDFA QBs, either. Brady and Lamar Jackson didn't have good games against us either. Nor did Allen have an especially good game against the Steelers, who aren't as good against the pass as we are. As I've said many times in this thread, in terms of predicting the future, I'd take Allen over Hodges in an instant, without having to think hard. Hodges has proved much much less. But it was reasonable to say that Hodges had been outplaying Allen so far. Again, much harder to make that contention now ... but I doubt that anyone will.

Dear Messenger. I blame you. Period.

No, I don't realize that, Scott. I do recognize that many over-sensitive Allen fans unreasonably think so, though. "Come to the media's rescue"? Good lord, Scott, talk about a metaphor that's outright wacko!! I'm not in a position to rescue anyone from anything. Do I notice that the standard response here when any media member says anything that might by any logical stretch be taken as eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeever so slightly negative, is to immediately and loudly blame the messenger? Which has absolutely zero logical strength or sense? Yeah, I do indeed notice that and when it gets especially egregious I sometimes say something. And this was one of those cases. People immediately took this comparison as wildly anti-Allen when it really was pretty reasonable and more pro-Duck than anti-Allen. (Again, before the Buffalo game, Duck's passer rating was over 100. Hell, even after that game, Duck's rating is within two points of Josh's. He was doing a very good job with what they were asking him to do, and that's the only reasonable way to judge a QB.) People also took it as a prediction of both of their futures rather than a comment on how things were at the time, and this made zero sense. After this game, it would be considerably harder to make that case, but it was pretty reasonable before he played our very fine defense.

I'm no huge fan of Marrone, although I do think he's a decent coach, but everybody says the team is a family. And nearly everyone would bail if they thought they were being undermined at the team level. Marrone didn't get along with Whaley and it looked like the Pegulas were going to start siding with Whaley. That wasn't a moral issue and nearly all coaches would do the same thing if they felt it was to their best advantage. The whole "you must never leave, but we'll fire you any time we want," thing that fans tend to want to hold players and coaches to doesn't make sense as a moral issue. People make decisions by what's in their best interest. Holding that against them doesn't make any sense. Ahhhhhhhhh. Interesting.

One of your three to four weekly bad takes, and all of them supported by the logically null "Watch the tapes," which ignores that people who are trolls see different things when they watch the tapes from the rest of us. And that all of us see things differently to some degree from confirmation bias among many other things.

Plus odds of Bills beating the Jets. Give the Bills a 35% chance to beat the Pats, the Phins a 20% chance to beat the Pats and the Bills a 70% chance to beat the Jets and you have a 4.9% chance of all three happening.

I agree that those plays are similar. The similarity being that bad throws brought about bad plays. Yes, in both cases a terrific catch might have occurred, but when a QB puts a guy who's wide open both times in a situation where he has to make a terrific play to even make a catch, it's at least as much on the QB as the receiver. Probably more.

Yeah, I had no idea. Glad they did. Smart coaching.

That may be your point, but my "straw man argument" is absolutely correct. Let's review. This is what you said: That implies that they said that "the guy throwing him the ball is terrible." They never said that or anything like it, so yes, you absolutely threw a straw man argument out there.

In retrospect? Please. At first Tyrod looked like a shot in the dark. Then for about seven games like it could be possible that if he kept improving and nobody found a way to defense him that he be a franchise QB. Then the Pats found that way in game eight, and he played for the last seven games of that first year the exact same way he played after that. Look back at his passer rating and his stats for those last seven games. Virtually the same as he managed for the rest of his Bills career. Seemed like there might be a possibility after that if he improved a lot, but by the fourth or fifth game of that second year everyone should have known what was obvious to people around the league, that he was fun to watch but wasn't going to be a franchise guy. As for Tyrod improving in year two, he got better in an area or two but was certainly not significantly better. Whereas Allen is absolutely definitely better this second year. You're right that Tyrod got better at a short-passing game in his second year. His YPA took a nose-dive from 8.0 in his first year to 6.9 in his second year and it just kept going down down down after that. Josh's on the other hand, has gone up. We still don't know about Allen. It's not obvious either way, but by a few games into Tyrod's second year the odds on his ever being a franchise QB were very low indeed. But Tyrod was a vet. He understood the game well by then. Josh is a second-year guy and still has a ton to learn. And yet in Allen's first 24 games with the team he's managed five 4th quarter comebacks and seven game-wining drives, while Tyrod in his 42 games put up three 4th quarter comebacks and five game-winning drives. Oh, and it's nonsense that Tyrod's "WR corps was a mess," that second year. He had Sammy Watkins, Robert Woods, Percy Harvin (though he only played three games) and Marquise Goodwin as well as a healthy young Charles Clay who was still looking terrific at getting open, though Tyrod couldn't find him open over the deep middle, or much of anyone else for that matter. That's not a group to rival the Chiefs or the Rams but it's certainly not a mess either.

Shouldn't be done that way. If you're going to add a guy's running TDs to his passing TDs, you should also add his fumbles to his INTs. Whole thing's nonsense, though. Passing stats and running stats should both be considered, but separately.

It really is hilarious how people rush onward in waves to blame the messenger on anything that can remotely be conceived of as reflecting badly on the Bills. A good 30% of the posts in this thread say nothing about the argument. They instead attack the messenger, an argument that carries absolutely zero reflection on the argument. When PFF says something that can be interpreted as casting the Bills in a good light, suddenly there are no PFF comments in that thread and everyone only talks about what they said. It's just so obvious and sad. But as for them being dumb, again, it's nonsense on the face of it. A majority of the NFL teams buy PFF's stuff. They would not do so if they were not very good at what they do. Not that that proves that they're correct in every value judgment that they make. They're not, anymore than anyone is. But they're a very capable organization.

Could you and anyone else who's going to tell me I'm wrong at least read what I say? Yeah, it's short-sighted. That's the freaking point, as I've said like five times now!!! Again, I take Josh in the long-term for the future. PFF only made the argument that Duck is playing better now. So yeah, they're only talking about the short-term. Me too. It is indeed short-sighted, and taking that into account, it's the opposite of stupid. It's extremely reasonable argument. And I am overlooking the running yards, largely. They're just fine, but QBs are generally ranked on passing stats and for good reason. I give Josh a bump up for his running, it really does help. But all things considered I'd rather have a QB with a better pass game who can't run much than a QB who is a terrific runner but not as good a passer. Josh's future, I believe, and Duck's too for that matter, will come down to whether he can master the passing game in the NFL. And Duck isn't a bad runner either, though he's not as good as Josh. Typical straw man argument. Could you quickly point out where they say Allen is "terrible"? What they said is that Duck is playing better than Josh. Which is a reasonable argument. Reasonable to disagree, too, of course, but I think they're probably right. And not because Josh is playing badly, but because Duck is playing really well. You can say - as many have - that he's not being asked to do much, and that's both true and fair. But should Allen be blamed because he doesn't run up as much production in terms of yards as Rodgers or Brees do? No, of course not. Allen isn't being asked to do what their teams ask Brees and Rodgers to do. You can only evaluate Allen on how well he performs the things he's asked to do. Same with Duck. Yeah, they're not asking him to do much. But what they're asking him to do, he's doing very well indeed. And just for the record yet again, yes, I think Hodges'll be diagnosed sooner or later. Someone will figure out how to take away his strengths, and when they do that, odds are he won't be able to adapt. Maybe he will, but odds are against it. But nobody's done it so far. He's playing really well.

I wouldn't myself. Not at age 37. "Suggs struggled in recent games for Arizona. "He didn't record any stats in Week 13 against the Los Angeles Rams and he followed it up with a rough performance against the Pittsburgh Steelers in Week 14. "In 46 defensive snaps against Pittsburgh, Suggs recovered a fumble, but he did not record a tackle or a QB hit or anything else." https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/cardinals/2019/12/13/terrell-suggs-arizona-cardinals-release-veteran-pass-rusher/2640457001/ Not just that, though. The Bills defense is absolutely humming along right now. Assuming Suggs is better today to play right with whatever guys he'd be replacing, Murphy or whoever, he'd be coming in without much sense of what the defense is. He doesn't make this team a Super Bowl team this year and I don't think he helps us the next few years when we should be competing. The good argument to take him is financial. Man, he'd be cheap. I don't do it, if I'm Beane, but I could see it.

Yeah, some great logic there. I doubt even Socrates would want to take you on with brilliant arguments like that. Pretty much any time you see a guy saying "I stopped at ..." what you've got is a guy with a serious case of confirmation bias who won't read anything he disagrees with, whether or not it makes sense.

Nobody's pretending. You're just missing the reality. A guy who is 18th in the league in yards and 25th in catches on a team that throws only 54.29% of the time (26th in the league) is not a #2. He's a #1. No, he's not what they call "a true #1," which generally means one of the top 6 or 7 guys in the league. But a completely "legit" #1? There isn't the slightest question of it. Would it help to bring in more competition at WR? Yeah, sure. I'd expect it, but there's no particular reason to force yourself to use your first-rounder, especially in a year where WR talent goes deep. They'll do what they do, what has worked so very well so far. They'll get the best guy available at a position of need. That's the intelligent way to go. It's the way they've said they want to operate, and it's the way they actually have operated. If the BPA is a receiver in the first, they'd probably be thrilled and grab him. If the BPA is otherwise, expect them to pick him anyway.

They're a good team. They're legit. I'd pick us, but expect them to be in it with a chance to win.