Thurman#1

Equally, though ... why? Your expectation is actually a guess. And a very optimistic one. Nothing wrong with that, except confusing guesses with something that should happen. It could happen. The odds are well against it. Yeah, a much more reasonable guess.

He's always pretty classy. I don't see this particularly as classy. Normal and positive, really. And for that matter, Zay was classy too, this year and generally, outside of his breakdown.

Duke was less "open" there than he was nicely boxing out the DB, IMO. That guy was right up against his back, and there was little separation. It was a nice route, but I didn't see a lot of space there. Again, hope I'm wrong about this, which certainly could be. Hang on, which side of this vicious little OSU contretemps do you come down on? Because there is only one correct side. ;- ) Was there really a case about that? I always thought the ESPN announcers came up with that massive stress on the article. Did OSUers themselves start it?

Yes, that's what I meant, and I couldn't agree more about your suggestion of a nickname. D'haquille "The Duke" Williams would be great, and I withdraw my original objection and support your nickname here wholeheartedly. You'd have to say "D'haquille," and nobody seems to do that ... seems like Duke is a contraction of the first syllable, but the way you wrote it here works. And as you say, nobody called him "The Elvis" Presley or "The George" Steele.

10%? No reason to think so. Five of the 32 1st rounders drafted in 2018 have already made a Pro Bowl. Seven from 2017. Seven from 2016, ten from 2015, seventeen from 2014, twelve from 2013, thirteen from 2012, and I could go on. More like a 30 - 40% chance each of those two years. Not to mention that they also get a 4th rounder. Great trade for Jax for a very unhappy player. Yeah, but in fairness, he said that before the 2018 season.

They got two 1sts and a 4th for him? Wow! Good deal for the Jags.

"The" Duke? Yuk. Unless he starts to refer to himself this way, this is like calling a guy, "The Bob," or "The Ted," or "The Alexander." I like the guy, though. Everytime I hear about him it's impressive. I'm just afraid he won't be much more than a tough guy who can make contested catches but can't find open space. Hope I'm wrong about that.

The Bills themselves are their biggest challenge. If they're good enough to challenge the best in the conference, they'll make the playoffs. If they're not good enough, it won't matter if they make the playoffs.

This. Tannehill's worse, and a lot of the problem with Mariota is really a problem with the OL and the surrounding talent.

I don't think he's blackballed. It's less complicated and less nefarious than that. He's just a living walking distraction, and coaches don't want that. I support his political stance totally but I don't want him on the Bills both because he's a distraction and because he's not good enough to help the team out enough to overcome the problems brought by the distractions. Agreed he's absolutely a top 64 guy, but if I were a coach I'd pick a different top 64 guy as my backup, because like McDermott and most (not all but by far most of them) NFL coaches, I think distractions degrade team performance.

No, Stafford has never won a Super Bowl. But neither has Tom Brady. Brady has been on a Super Bowl-winning team. But he didn't win a Super Bowl. That was the entire roster of the New England Patriots and the coaching staff besides. Wins are a team stat. All a QB can do is play QB at a very high level. He can't control how well the defense plays or how often the kicker misses FGs in crucial situations. Or much of anything else. Having said all that, I'm not sure if I'd accept a Stafford-like career. I haven't really watched enough of him consistently to know him well enough. My feeling is that if I really did the research I'd probably say yes. But I can't be bothered to put in the work. Too hypothetical. From what I have seen he's been a top ten guy most years, and if that's so, then yeah, I'd be happy. Not sure if my perception is true, though.

Me too, but that isn't Matt Stafford, it's the Lions. Wins is a team stat.

No, if fans look ahead it could affect how many nutsy, wacky, incorrect predictions they make.

Because nobody corrects all the incompetent coaches and players. If fans could correct bad playcalls, poor game management and player mistakes, the games would go on for weeks. The refs do a damn good job, for human beings at ground level.

Yeah, I've often thought that. The problem is that it could lead to too many challenges. Challenges can help correct mistakes, but they also lengthen games and can often themselves prove to be mistakes.

This is an interesting idea, but I wonder if you could edit these first few paragraphs so we can better understand what you're doing. Are these the stats for each guy's first six games of their rookie year? The whole rookie year? The first 16 games they played? The first five years? What?

Pretty accurate? Hardly. Some are pretty close, but most are personal, short-term and subjective. Look at his take on Bridgewater. "WINNING GAMES AS BACK UP BUT BREES WILL BE BACK." Yeah, but you could just as correctly say, "Showing some signs he could be a franchise guy down the road. Too early to say, but it's definitely possible. Could he replace Brees in a couple of years or will he refuse to re-sign and look elsewhere?" Or Mariota: "BENCHED TODAY FOR TANNAHANZ." Yes, but short-term and misleading. You could just as reasonably say something like, "He is going to have to show himself as a consistent starter soon, or he may not be perceived as one. What he does the rest of the year will be crucial." Or Goff: "FOLDING LIKE A LAWN CHAIR WEEK BY WEEK." That's supposed to sum up Goff? Pathetic. More like "Has shown he can be excellent for long periods of time. The offense is having problems early this year, though they're still scoring points, but Goff needs to get it together." These are mostly very pessimistic, apparently to make Allen look better in contrast. And Allen won't look better or worse in contrast. You need to look at him himself. That's what will matter. Putting down other QBs, or praising them for that matter, won't affect how Allen is viewed. How he plays is the only thing that will matter. So far he's improving. But needs to improve a lot more. Which is very very reasonable for a QB as young as he is. Time will tell. And time will tell is not pessimism, though it may feel that way for those looking for ways to inflate perceptions.

His pessimism, as you like to call it, is realism. And whatever else it is, it's not even close to the end of the spectrum, That would be the relatively few who believe he's very unlikely to ever be a decent QB. That's pessimism.

IMO they've always served a purpose for us, as a measuring stick, and that will be the most important thing they do for us.

It's easy to play that game if you assume that just because you call a run that we gain yardage. Life doesn't work that way. Very very (very) few Pats games over the past 15 years have been low-scoring street fights. It's only in hindsight that you can make that assumption. Over the years, teams that settle for FGs against the Pats lose by being outscored. There were a lot of plays where if the Bills had done better they'd have won. That's how it works in close games. There were also a lot of plays where if the Pats had done better they'd have won by more. I thought sure you would refer to the punt block. I have no problem with going pass on those two plays. Throw the ball away if rushed. Or make the field goal.

He's being hired as a geek. Not a tech geek, but a carnival geek. He can be expected to be a big personality and say kooky things.

Amari Cooper, maybe. Mack and Cooper went in a drastic rebuild. Which Cincy might do. I could see them trading him. I think it's very unlikely we'll see the Bills be the team to do that. As for the others you mention, they were traded because they didn't fit the process, which isn't only a Buffalo phenomena. Also, how many of those guys were 31 years old as Green is. The Bills did kick the tires on Brown. Would they have paid what it would have taken? Hard to say, but he is younger and more talented, and there used to be an argument that he had acted out only to get out of Pittsburgh, though that's now been shown not to be so.

No, you don't have to spend the money somewhere. If it's unspent, it's rolled over and added to our money next year. When they do spend it, they'll do it the way they've done everything so far ... according to their plan And they've made it very very clear what that plan is. It's long-term not short term. It's for consistency, not getting better this year. It's fiscally conservative. It doesn't include going after the higher level expensive FAs, and particularly not the older ones. It welcomes players who are available to play (and Green's last four years games played of 9, 16, 10 and oh-for-five so far this year show he's not available, which is the tendency of older guys anyway). They had $90 mill this year to throw at glittering objects and they didn't, they stuck to the plan. Expect that to continue. And all of those point to the fact that Green simply isn't the kind of guy who fits their plan. And their plan is NFL best practice. It's unlikely. They do need to raise the quality at WR. We'll probably see them do that next year, in ways that fit their plan.

Good point.

Putting limits on that is your own problem, it's an artificial constraint. Elite isn't about how something is done. It's about how well it's done. This defense is elite. Third in DVOA, third in yards, fourth in points allowed (more of a team stat than a defensive stat, but it falls in line with the others). Yards per drive, points per drive ... They all tell the same story. They're elite. So far, at least. It's early. But they look the part. They were very very good last year and they got better.