Thurman#1

Your point about it still being early is very well-taken. It is indeed early. As for the field goal, though you're right about the earlier 4th downs, the odds of making a first probably weren't any worse than the odds of making a 58 yard FG. I didn't like the way they approached that series, now or then.

Yes, it should, in the case of a rebuild. Which this was. When you are rebuilding with no QB and a terrible cap situation, good talent should absolutely be let go if it gets you into position to get a possible franchise QB and cleans up the cap. Rebuilds don't guarantee success, but when you're a mediocre team in cap trouble with no QB, they're generally the way that holds the best possibility of eventually being competitive for a title consistently. But it does mean two years of awfulness and a likelihood of another year of not being very good. Morse's contract averages out to the highest on our team. Hughes' is #2. And our defense is the least of our problems. We have a very good defense. If McDermott needs to pay a guy that much for that function, deal with it. The whole defense is taking up $75 mill on the cap. It's a real bargain. McDermott's the architect of that D and knows what he needs to make it work better than fans do.

Polian was luckier in that he had a much better situation in which to begin a complete rebuild. The 1985 Bills had gone 2-14, leaving Polian with the #1 overall pick and a shot at Bruce Smith. McDermott's first pick was #10. The next year they'd only had four wins and they again had good. More, Polian's first year as GM he came to a team that had drafted Jim Kelly two years before but lost him to the USFL. Being gifted with Jim Kelly is a seriously nice situation for a GM. At the end of Polian's 3rd year, they had only three Pro Bowlers, and two of them were the guys mentioned above, Bruce and Jim. The third was Tasker. We haven't seen how many Pro Bowlers we'll see at the end of this regime's third year, but Tre looks like a sure thing and one or two more, particularly from the defense is certainly very possible. In other words, you're looking at Polian's regime with the benefit of hindsight. This early he looked like he'd lucked into Kelly and Smith and not yet had anyone else except Tasker on STs. Looking back on the McDermott and Beane regime, there's no way to know what we'll think. It's way too early. It's simply not a fair comparison.

I should say I'm not a huge fanboy or anything. If they can replace his play cheaper in the next year or two, they should do it. Wouldn't be any skin off my nose. But the hate here from a group of fans and the love from the Bills, shown in contract terms, quotes, interviews and every way they can, really, shows that someone is missing something. And it's probably not the folks who know his assignments on every play. Outta here for the evening.

It was a 3rd, not a 2nd. And a 7th was thrown in.

Again, when you look at what DLs are paid, it's plain that's wrong. Several gap pluggers are paid what he is and more. Are guys who can do it all paid more? Yeah, and for good reason. Aaron Donald is paid more than twice what Star is paid and he's worth it. But there are several space eaters paid similarly to Star. As for run stuffing being a weakness, if it continues to be so, I'll worry more. It appears to be two or three specific games where we had problems.

Remind me, when referring to his having bad plays, did I say, " A play here and there? Yes. But few and far between." Oh, yeah, yes I did. So I'm aware there are a few bad plays on film out there. Star takes responsibility for two last game right in ther article. And you can find two bad plays on absolutely any player in the league, from Aaron Donald and the Bosas on down. Can you produce 20 or 30? You could for Peko.

I certainly don't watch every play from all the games on All-22. Too much time. I didn't watch more than a few from last week for instance. But when we started hearing about this, I did watch every one of his snaps from two games in a row, the Dolphins and the Eagles. And he was mostly holding his ground and doing a fine job against double-teams. There just wasn't much of what we hear about from you guys. A play here and there? Yes. But few and far between.

Again, nonsense. Star isn't supposed to stop that. The whole run defense is. Star is supposed to do his part in stopping that. Each of them is. The fact that you want to put all of that on Star says more about you than it does about him. And I'm unconvinced about that number as well. "Interior rush yards"? Willing to be convinced if you can show the source with a link. Seems doubtful to me, as Football Outsiders has the Bills giving up fewer yards per play than the NFL average on runs to the "MID/GUARD" area. They have us 12th best at that. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/dl/2019

You're close but not right. Do your job on the interior and the announcers won't mention your name much. Fans often do. Analysts do. And the desperate searchers for scapegoats do. Star gets mentioned almost never by the game commentators. And lots by those who need a whipping boy. That doesn't mean he's not doing well. And the idea that you can't take anything positive said by teammates and coaches seriously is absolute nonsense. In fact, when you see that line of argument from a fan, you're generally looking at someone with a pitchfork and a torch. If a guy isn't doing his job, teammates don't come out and say great things about him. There's a ton of ways of commenting on a guy who's not getting it done without lying or throwing him under the bus. When a guy is getting beaten, teammates who don't want to throw him under the bus say things like, "Hey, we're in this as a team, this is everyone's fault," or "He gives 110%," or "He's a team guy, a good guy," or "He puts picks up his lunchpail and comes every day." There are a million of them. And those aren't the kinds of things they're saying about Lotulelei. They're very specifically saying he's playing well, he's doing his job, he's doing what the coaches want done and that his job is low on glory and fans don't understand or appreciate it. They're saying he earns his salary despite many fans not understanding that.

That may be what YOU want from someone with his paycheck. But not so much McDermott and Beane. There are several big space eaters up that high in the average salary rankings. So several teams that value that skill set enough to pay a guy enough to very clearly show they disagree with you. And McDermott is one. They knew what they were getting with Star. McDermott had coached him for several years and obviously wanted him here and didn't have a problem with the salary. So yeah, the whipping boy problem does indeed have to do with fans having different priorities than the coaching staff does.

Agreed. But I don't think that happens nearly as often as many on here say it does. If it did, he would have been off the team before the season. As the article says, the Bills are happy with his preformance. Teerlinck says he's been their most consistent player. That is what you want from him and his position.

Good article with lots of quotes. Point is that while fans scapegoat, the Bills think he's doing the job, and Lotulelei doesn't care what anyone outside the locker room thinks. https://buffalonews.com/2019/11/08/buffalo-bills-star-lotulelei-nfl-skurski/ I was surprised this hadn't been posted. I searched for Lotulelei and checked the first few pages. Anyway, it's a long article and a good one. It's around three or four times the size of my excerpts. Excerpts: “ 'Overall, Star has been our most consistent player throughout training camp, preseason and through the season,' defensive line coach Bill Teerlinck said Thursday. 'Versus the run, his footwork, pad level, key recognition, block recognition, step and punch, it’s all as good as anybody we've had, day in and day out.' "After the Eagles ran for 218 yards in a Week 8 win over the Bills, coach Sean McDermott defended Lotulelei’s play, repeating a line he’s used frequently before when talking about what’s asked of the “one-technique” defensive tackle in his scheme. “ 'It’s the most unselfish position on the defense,' McDermott said. 'Your name doesn’t get in the paper a lot and sometimes that’s a good thing as it relates to staying in your gap and doing your job. … Those defensive tackles don’t get a lot of recognition for the dirty work.' "At least, not from the outside world. “ 'He does so much stuff for this defense that people have no idea about,' fellow defensive tackle Jordan Phillips said. 'I know he's never going to say anything about (outside criticism). That's just the way he is. He doesn't care. He goes out there and he does his job at a very high level. A lot of people can't do the stuff that he does, including me. I try to go in there and do what he does, and it doesn't always go right. But that man does it every play. He eats up blocks and lets us go out there and do our thing. There's a reason why he's paid what he's paid, because he does it right. He's the centerpiece of our defense.' ” ... and ... " 'Speaking for myself, I tried to do too much,” [Lotulelei] said. 'There were two big runs that were on me, where I tried to do too much. I'll peak into a different gap when that's not my gap. We're supposed to be a gap-sound defense and everybody is supposed to do their job. It's just a matter of everybody trusting each other and then being disciplined. They were both huge runs, and I take full responsibility for those. It's just a matter of trusting the guy next to you and being disciplined.' ” ... and ... “ 'For myself, I feel like I've been playing fine according to what's been asked of me to do,' [Star] said. 'Especially as a defensive line group, we've been playing fine. … At the end of the day we're 6-2. I don't think it's something to lose sleep over.' ” That last bit is the key, IMO, "... according to what's been asked of me to do." Fans here want him to do things he's not asked to do. And then call him a failure when he instead does what McDermott asked him to do. As noted above, he admitted culpability on two plays last week. Doesn't say he's perfect, at all. But there's been - as always - an urge to identify a scapegoat and to grab for the torches and pitchforks, and Lotulelei is this month's whipping boy on the boards.

Washington had a very good OL and our D allowed nine points and shut down the run in the second half after they got their run fits straightened out. It'll depend how they execute, but they've got a legit shot at having a good day for the defense. Agreed that the offense has a tough time scoring.

That article was really written more about the Super Bowl. And the fact that using that scheme may have resulted in making Goff unable to be independent. If that were all the problem, the Rams would just run a hurry-up and get every play off before the audio cut out. Get lined up early enough and you don't give the D time to make those scheme changes late. If you're lined up with 20 seconds or more left, they have to either switch too early to cut McVay out or defend in their first arrangement. That may well not have helped but it sure isn't all the problem at this point. EDIT: Here's a nice bit from an article on this topic, posted by Logic. "Goff’s late-season struggles from 2018 have bled into this year as the cushy QB surroundings McVay’s offense provided last season have deteriorated. The Rams’ ruthless efficiency on first down has largely disappeared, and, faced with more obvious passing situations, Goff has had issues as a dropback passer. He’s completing just 61.6 percent of his dropback passes, which ranks 17th among qualified QBs. The Rams have also gone from having one of the best offensive lines in football to one of the worst. Goff has been pressured on 130 dropbacks through eight games this fall, which ranks fifth among qualified QBs; last year, that number was 197 for the entire season." https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/11/5/20941743/nfl-young-quarterback-evaluation-gardner-minshew-baker-mayfield-mitchell-trubisky

Yup. We are indeed running the ball 55.42% of the time, but that's a lot. Ninth-highest rate in the league and running just two percent more would put us at 4th. If they mean that we pass more than we run, so does everyone but three teams.

A 31 year old looking for a long-term contract, with a major recent history of injury? That's not a picture of a Beane-type pickup.

I don't see what you see here. There's the amount of interest I'd expect for a team with a likelihood of getting a wild card in a very weak conference, but unlikely to get a division title. (IMO that's fair.) Agreed there aren't really the stars or the sex appeal either, though. That may be having a bit of an impact.

Yup, his unimpressive stats are a direct result of those three things ... AND ... ... Josh's own performance. Yup. Same with every other player in the league, really, everybody needs their teammates to do their jobs. But you can also look and see reasonably well how people are performing. Josh looks good sometimes. And bad other times. And he'll have to grow out of that inconsistency if he is to ever become a franchise QB.

The eyeball test is every bit as biased as stats used badly. It's a psychological fact that people see what they want to see. Confirmation bias. People want to pretend that because an opinion is based on video, it's correct, and that is on the face of it ridiculous. If it were so, people would never look at video and disagree about how good someone is and whose fault a given play is. The reason Josh "passes the eyeball test," is because you like him and want him to. Plenty of fairminded people watch Josh and see him fail the eyeball test. The way to come closest to the truth would be something along the lines of this: Sometimes Josh Allen really looks like he can become a franchise QB. And then, sometimes he doesn't. Thing is ... that's not a QB stat. It's a team stat, unless you're going to give Josh Allen the credit for holding opponents to low scores, for Buffalo pick-sixes and to blame Josh for everything bad that happens, missed field goals, etc. None of which makes the slightest bit of sense. It's this simple ... you give Josh Allen the blame and the credit for how well he plays quarterback. Nothing else. So, no, no other stats matter. But that one that does matter (Win-Loss Record) doesn't judge Josh Allen. It judges all 52 Bills players and the coaching staff besides.

Nonsense. You could make that a reasonable statement by changing "you" to "some teams." "Some teams don't change their identity to face opponents, and some teams attack the weakness of that week's opponent and create plays to suit the strength of your offense." That would be reasonable. Some teams use balanced, flexible and varied as their identity. The best example of that is the team that's been the best in football over the last 20 years. Which ain't a bad team to model. The Pats are very varied and tailor their offense to suit the opponents. They mostly pass one week, mostly run the next and are balanced the third. They switch all the time. More, when you look at the teams with an identity, they tend to be teams with established personnel. They aren't generally teams with nine new starters on offense. The idea's kind of laughable, really.

How could you say he's not? Fewer INTs, more TDs, fewer absolutely dumb throws, rising passer rating .... Of course he's getting better. The real question is whether he's getting enough better.

Please. He's our #2, our primary blocking TD. #2 in snaps last week. You don't cut a guy getting significant snaps for a guy who might or might not play or help. Wait, is he the latest designated scapegoat?

It's one game, get it? And so far - with the exception of Peko being let go and people replacing his snaps - nobody's taken over much of anything yet. As usual, people who don't wait for all the facts to come in will come to a lot more erroneous conclusions than those who do. Get it?

Film can be misleading too. Your opinion after watching film relies on perception ... and perception relies greatly on prejudices and beliefs. And unless you're talking about people who actually go back and watch the entire game on All-22, there's cherry-picking there too. Hell, a film-watcher cherry-picks what parts of the plays he watches unless he actually goes back and watches each play 10 or 12 times.