Thurman#1

This. Nobody needs a true #1. It sure doesn't hurt in any way to get one, and if we get one, that would be great. But how many recent SB winners have had true #1 WRs? Exactly. In any case, John Brown is playing very very well. He's fine as our #1. Not a "true #1" as the description generally seems to refer to the top 6 or 8 guys in the league. But he's well inside the top 32 WRs. What we need is for a bunch of things to happen. We need the QB to improve. We need the OL to gel. They've been playing together better, but they have a ways to go. And we could use a bit of an upgrade in talent at WR, another RB and maybe another upgrade at wherever they feel it's most need on the OL. I'd expect a lot of that over the offseason.

Yeah, great point about Vontae. The guy cost us virtually nothing and was playing decent before he decided to quit. And yeah, Lotulelei is the #1 NT and Trent Murphy is a DE on a defense that is #3 in the league in both scoring and yards. So good point that we got something for the money. Taylor's fate was sealed from the beginning. Hasn't exactly exploded now that he's out from under the dreaded Dennison, has he? Dennison had nothing to do with the fact that Tyrod played like Tyrod. He had a great first seven games, then they played NE and Belichick figured him out. From that point on his stats stayed pretty much the same for the rest of his time here. Yeah, in his third year they brought in Dennison. But Tyrod played just the same. Yeah, draft picks have a lot to do with salary cap. Boys have a lot to do with girls too, but when you're talking about boys and someone hijacks the conversation to talk about girls, he's just being annoying. You came in saying, And that is a pure straw man. He hadn't said or acted like Allen didn't cost a lot to get. He's clearly talking about the cap, and you are clearly pretending he said something he didn't. He didn't say or imply anything about the cost of acquiring him.

How many you lose is down to pure luck. It's not a positive argument that he's lost less than half. Just means he's been lucky. Yes, there's a talk to be had. No, that's not the conversation going on here. If you want to talk about it, fine, there are places for that, but it has nothing to do with the salary cap, which is what's being talked about in the post you replied to.

It's kind of an interesting comparison. Difference being Lamar has improved a ton from last year to this year, whereas Tyrod's best games were the first seven of his starting career, before people figured him out.

Picks don't count against the salary cap, and that's what is being talked about there.

McDermott really did nail that. Perfect answer. Seemed like a good question to me. Very reasonable to notice the similarity and point it out and question what's happening. Folks on here seem to think Sully is desperately trying to get McDermott in some kind of trouble here. I think he was just pointing out something interesting and looking for McDermott's POV. If Allen keeps playing at this level and doesn't improve, this will look like a brilliant question. If Allen improves a lot, it will not even be remembered. Right now, it's an interesting juxtaposition.

If I thought he really would last five years, yeah, in a second. But I don't think he will.

Actually, many might pick Allen. Not because he's playing well, but because he has potential at the most important position. If you're on a team without a QB that has won a few games and won't get a top five pick, you might easily pick Allen. Tre's clearly the best player we've got right now. But plenty of smart GMs on teams without a QB might pick Allen.

Yeah, it's been a terrible year for kickers and it's not clear why. Are they making the balls differently? I think we'd have heard about it if they had. I guess it might be that STs have gotten ever so slightly better at blocking kicks and they're trying to slightly hurry the kicks? Maybe? Dunno, really. But he didn't lose the game for us. Plenty of blame to go around in that game. But he certainly didn't perform well, most specifically on that first kick. Yes, I read an article a day or two ago saying that not so many kicks had been missed since - this is from memory so it's only approximate - 2009, if I remember right. It was a while anyway.

Enough with the truly idiotic nonsense. We got the whole "he he won't make the call" nonsense with Peko. And then Peko was waived. If you seriously think that McDermott won't let people go for reasons like these you're just wrong and obviously so.

What do you want him to do? Refuse to answer questions? Lie? It's not like he tried to avoid blame.

Everyone's gotten bigger as time has passed. It was rare to find 300-pounders on the DL, even in the interior, in the 80s, but started to be more common in the 90s and it's just continued, though not as precipitously since drug testing has gotten a bit better. Now, it's rare to find interior guys under 300, and yeah, Oliver is a rare bird at that weight, though Aaron Donald is not far different.

Typical JRober. Realize it's been pointed out that you're wrong, and quick try to change the ground while never admitting it. 19th in total points in all of college football? Freaking Wyoming going 19th in Division 1, scoring 37.6 points a game? As usual, you were wrong and now try to frame it in a way that makes sense and pretend you didn't make a mistake. Wrong on the face of it, and never willing to admit it. You said he'd never been in a prolific offense. 19th out of 130 Division 1 schools is absolutely prolific. No real way to say it isn't. It was a stupid error. Everyone makes dumb mistakes. The thing to do when you do so is to say, "Oops, made a mistake there, but ... " and then continue to try to make your argument, no matter how dumb an argument it is. That's how mature people handle the situation. But then there are the others who start in trying to prove that their dumb mistake is not a dumb mistake and bury themselves in stupid minutiae, self-contradictions and infinite backtracks and rationalizations. But that's the way you roll. Just wanted to point this out for those who don't know you well. You pile up stupid arguments like chipmunks pile up acorns. "Is anyone calling [the 49ers offense] prolific? Obviously not," you say. Great point, dude. But by the way ... ----------------------------------------------- "Shanahan’s offense and playcalling is good enough to make up more than the difference and make the Niners one of the most prolific attacks in the NFL. " https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/15/san-francisco-49ers-cincinnati-bengals-kyle-shanahan-jimmy-garoppolo-stats-video-highlights-nfl-twitter/ "With Kyle Shanahan calling the plays for Garoppolo, an offense featuring star tight end George Kittle and a talented cast of young skill-position players, San Francisco's attack should be prolific enough to keep the Niners in every game. " https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-training-camp-2019-nfc-west-preview/1k215frj9tj5s1ay0xcp0pj2g9 " Outside receivers Deebo Samuel, Marquise Goodwin, and Dante Pettis won’t have the Rams losing much sleep, but tight end George Kittle might already be the best in the game and is on pace for 90+ receptions. The big problem for the 49ers offense this week will be the absence of their two starting tackles, Joe Staley and Mike McGlinchey, as well as their super-fullback Kyle Juszczyk. That could make it difficult for the 49ers to get their backfield going, which might ultimately undo their so-far prolific offense. "49ers' 21 personnel group among NFL's most prolific offenses" https://ninerswire.usatoday.com/2019/07/11/49ers-21-personnel-group-among-nfls-most-prolific-offenses/ "OK, so no one actually forgot about Jimmy G. But his return should be one of the more heralded aspects of what’s on tap for San Francisco this upcoming season. And if he produces anywhere close to what the accepted level would be for him, the Niners offense should be oh-so prolific in 2019." https://ninernoise.com/2019/05/21/49ers-5-reasons-excited-2019/6/ " Expect more of the same in the Monday nighter from the 49ers’ prolific attack." https://www.thesportsgeek.com/nfl/browns-vs-49ers-mnf-pick-nfl-week-5/ " Sanders only built from there by posting the most prolific receiving performance this season for the 49ers four days later as he already has become Jimmy Garoppolo’s No. 1 outside target." https://q13fox.com/2019/11/11/new-receivers-add-to-offenses-for-seahawks-49ers/ "The combination of a potentially prolific offense and a fierce pass rush is a great foundation for a playoff team. That’s precisely what the 49ers are betting on this year. " https://www.oddschecker.com/us/picks-parlays/football/nfl/20190808-how-many-wins-will-the-49ers-get-in-2019 "Jimmy Garoppolo and the offense had little trouble carving Carolina's defense with 232 yards rushing and a pair of touchdown passes for San Francisco's most prolific offensive game since beating Detroit 55-17 on Dec. 19, 1993. " ------------------------------------------------------------------- I've proved my point, so I'll stop there but there were plenty more using the "P" word. As usual, you're not just wrong, but obviously and startlingly wrong. Prolific doesn't mean being in the top tenth of a percent or anything nonsensical like that. It just means to produce a lot. Which Wyoming did. 19th most of 130. And as for nobody calling the Niners prolific I googled it and found many. No, they're not called "prolific" as much as, say the Chiefs, though the Chiefs have scored fewer PPG than the 9ers. That makes the Niners offense, by definition, more prolific than the Chiefs offense so far this year. The reason people use that word for the Chiefs more than the 9ers is simple ... the Chiefs have been prolific for years and the Niners have only become consistently prolific this year. People are used to the Chiefs being prolific. They haven't caught up to the 9ers yet, but if the Niners keep being as prolific as they've been so far, people will use the word more than they do now. They see it's happening but aren't convinced yet. Yes, the team's identity is built around the defense. But there is no reasonable argument that the 9ers offense hasn't been prolific so far this year. They have. Just as the Wyoming Cowboys were prolific the year they had better players around Allen.

Bolded comments above. The bottom line is it's way way too early to evaluate. Halfway through the first year you have no idea what a guy will become unless he's already playing like an absolute stud. None of our guys are doing that yet - though Singletary has been close - but that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And I think you've undergraded pretty significantly through the first four picks. I do agree with you this far, none save maybe Singletary has really shown forth as an early standout. And you generally hope that maybe one or two will, the way that Tre White, Stephon Gilmore and Cordy Glenn did. But Dareus did too, and look how that turned out.

I just went back and checked 2001 for comparison in terms of how much QBs were throwing per game back then. 35 attempts per game? Only four QBs threw that much back then. And my curiosity was stimulated by your idea and and I went and looked at the same thing ... the Pats W-L record when Brady threw for over 35 attempts. And in his first four years (including year one when he threw three passes the whole year, so I was basically looking at years 2 - 4, he did far far better than .500 when he threw over 35 attempts. 2001: 2-1 2002: 5-2 2003: 4-1 That's 11-4, which comes to a lot north of .500. I kept going because I didn't want to limit the data if it dropped off after that, did two more years, and he never went as low as .500 in any year. 2004: 2-1 2005: 5-3 EDIT: I see you already went over this with someone later in the thread. Sorry.

I'm Didn't want to read through the whole thread. And I assume somebody already said this, but maybe it's worth repeating. Most QBs who throw a lot do so because their team is already well behind. So of course you're going to see most QBs who throw a lot lose. And teams that are well ahead are going to want to burn time so they will run more. So the problem isn't that teams that pass a lot lose. It's that teams that are losing pass a lot. It would be interesting (but a squatload of work) to look at win-loss records of teams with QBs who throw a high percentage of the time without being, for example, more than six points behind. I suspect that win-loss record would be a ton better.

Yeah, you're right, QBs never get better. Oh, wait ... That's a stunningly dumb take. Some QBs get better. Some don't. The idea in your post that doesn't make sense is that Allen can't develop into a very good NFL QB. He might, or might not. It's too early to know. And as for your other brilliant take here, that Josh "has never led a prolific offense at any point in his life," you've found yet another way to increase the wrongness out there in the world. The 2016 Wyoming Cowboys, who had a fairly decent cast on offense around Josh, only averaged 37.6 points per game during their 12 games. Who could ever call that prolific, except anyone with a brain? More wrongness to a startling degree. I'd put up Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw's first two years stats but people wouldn't believe how awful they were. Suffice it to say he threw two and a half times as many INTs as TDs. Troy Aikman threw nearly twice as many INTs as TDs his first two years, 36 INTs to 20 TDs. Aaron Rodgers was awful his first three years at camp. Take a look at his preseason stats. Carson Palmer wasn't awful, but he sure struggled, a year on the bench and then 18 TDs and 18 INTs his second year. And what round a guy was drafted in has no bearing. The only thing that does is limit the number of names that are eligible, to make it easier to make your dumb argument. There are plenty of guys who were bad for more than two years and then became franchise guys. What round they were picked in is beside the point. Some guys who aren't good enough at the beginning become good enough. Alex Smith. Tony Romo. Kurt Warner couldn't even get in the league for four years and it was his third year before he was good. Jake Delhomme. Chad Pennington, who would've been a Hall of Famer without those shoulder injuries. Mark Rypien couldn't get on the field his first three years and would've been an HOFer if not for what we now know was a terrible concussion that destroyed his career. Kirk Cousins couldn't get on the field much his first three years but when he did he was bad, with 19 INTs and 18 TDs. I could - very easily - go on.

I blame the new math. In what universe is 56.77% equal to three to one? We're 10th highest in the league in run percentage.

I suppose it's possible. Me, I see Daboll, McDermott and Beane getting another year. That's my guess. I see no reason to think we can't go into next season with the same lineup. Plenty of coach-QB combos improve from time, maturation and continual progress. Eight fumbles in 11 games last year. That's a bit less but still a lot.

Not really buying that the problem is that he doesn't want to throw INTs. No QB in history wants to throw INTs. And yet many manage to hit some deep balls. The problem is much more likely mechanics. Young guy panic. An unwillingness / inability to throw it high and let guys run under it. That sort of thing.

The game was on the line every time. We only needed three more points. It was on the line when we made those terrific stops as well. You can't blame a defense when they hold the other team to 19 points on a day when the offense plays horribly. Yeah, I wish they had made one more stop. But they played well overall. The offense didn't. Nor did Hauschka.

Nah. That's not the bottom line. It's true, but it's a footnote. You can put about a hundred things in the first clause there. Bottom line is that if Hauschka hits the field goals and we win. Bottom line is that if the offense scores another TD and we win. I got a hundred of 'em. The defense held the Browns to 19 points. They certainly didn't play great, but they played well. Absolutely well enough to win. The onus on this game falls on the offense and on Hauschka. Having said that, the whole team needs to play better. But the defense played well enough to win this game and the offense didn't. It wasn't intentional, as McDermott said in his press conference.

If that were true, that he gets pushed back more often than not, than he would indeed be a major problem. Thing is, that's not what's happening. What's happening is that the Bills have made it very very clear that while he's not perfect, he's successfully doing what they want him to do. He's not doing what some fans want, but he is satisfying the Bills. Which is the important thing. Liuget is apparently replacing Peko, so Star has nothing to do with that signing. Jordan Phillips and Oliver are 3-techs. They play a different position than Lotulelei. If bringing in four guys to fill two positions that your head coach has a history of platooning heavily doesn't make sense to you, you need to understand that the coach isn't handling things the way you would like. But considering he has an extremely impressive history of running successful defenses and is currently running a defense that's third in both yards and points, maybe things are going just the way they should be ... on defense at least. Especially when the defense is only counting $75 mill against the cap this year. That's cheap. Again, the problem really isn't the defense. They're playing very well. The problem is the offense.

Of course there's such a thing as a year away. You've got utter nonsense there. And you seem to think we have a franchise QB, which we clearly do not. We have a guy who may become a franchise QB down the road. But he isn't one now. A guy whose passer rating is 29th in the league among guys with 100 or more throws, whose YPA is 26th and whose 10:7 TD/INT ratio puts him in much the same area is in absolutely no non-nutty way a franchise QB. Yeah, the AFC is a mess. But they've made it clear what their goal is and they are working towards it. They've said it again and again, they want to be consistently competitive. They don't need to be competitive this year if it comes at the expense of the future, which the deals available to them almost certainly would have been. The fact that you have different goals from them doesn't mean they're wrong. In fact, what it means is that if that's your goal, you've chosen a team that isn't congruent with your goals. Perhaps you ought to switch to a team that's always choosing this year over the future. The Redskins, maybe. They'd at least pursue the same goals as you want your team to do. The Bills, though, aren't going to be competing for a title this year, and paying too much for some old guy who'd be gone in a year or two wouldn't have changed that.

Not if they're good next year. I mean, you've got one guess there, but there's no particular reason to think it's correct. I did a study a couple of years back where I looked at all the successful complete rebuilds in the last 50 years or so. The first two years were universally awful. And about 10% were really successful by the third year. Around 60% achieved success in the 4th year, and nearly all the rest in the fifth. There was a possibility we'd be really good this year, but it was always very unlikely. If it happens - there are no guarantees - it's likely to be in the next two years. It'll mostly depend on Josh Allen, IMO.