Thurman#1

He really isn't. Looked for that one year like he'd really turned the corner and was headed for that kind of a career, but that's not how it's turned out. So far, at least. Newton was one of the main arguments for why the Bills might pick Allen. The Bills were building their team in many ways using the Carolina blueprint, and Carolina picked a big physical guy with problems in being consistently accurate and built a very competitive team around him, even reaching a Super Bowl. The fact that Beane did select Allen made me think that this is yet another area where the Bills like the Carolina template.

The article does say that about hinting he should model his game after Wilson. But there's no mention of Newton in the article whatsoever. Bringing in Newton was pure Yolo, with neither the writer or Beane dropping the name. But the only thing Beane appears to have been mentioning Wilson for is to say that Wilson builds his game around passing, not running. I'm sure in that sense, yeah, they'd like to have him be more like Wilson. But they're two very different players in style, build, skill set ... Both great runners, but that's about it for their similarities. Wilson's rookie year completion percentage was 64.7%. That was good for 9th in the league that year, and he got that while maintaining a much higher YPA than Allen did, 7.9 for Wilson compared to 6.5 for Allen. Wilson and Allen started with wildly different strengths to build on and weaknesses to improve.

Agreed that you have to coach the whole team ... but Coughlin didn't win with Hostetler. Hostetler's last year with the Giants came 12 years before Coughlin joined the G-Men. And Parcells didn't win with Hostetler either. Those Giants won with Simms/Hostetler, with Simms going 11-3 before his injury, 11-3 on a team that finished at 13-3. No Simms, no title. Same with Pederson. He didn't win with Nick Foles. He won with Wentz/Foles, with Carson Wentz going 11-2 on a team that finished at 13-3. No Wentz, no title. And Rypien was an absolutely sensational QB that year. Go take a look. His third and fourth years, he rounded into a guy who looked like he was on a straight shot to the Hall of Fame. Go look, in '91, the year the Skins beat the Bills in the SB, Rypien was 2nd in passer rating, 2nd in YPA, 2nd in TDs while still managing to have the highest TD:INT ratio of anyone over 250 attempts ... all in his fourth year. He looked like he had a shot to become a true great ... and then he went off a cliff and nobody knew why till recently it's come out that he had a bad concussion on the heels of a bunch of others and he simply wasn't the QB he could have been. It's a very sad case, but it sure isn't a case of a coach winning without a terrific QB. Rypien was sensational that year. Namath? Please, there's a backlash against the guy, partly because of how mouthy he is, and it's true that he wasn't the same after the knee injury, but he was terrific. The year they won the Super Bowl, Namath was first-team All-Pro. Not just the Pro Bowl, but first team All-Pro. Please. McMahon? Fair enough. You have a point there. Same with Dilfer and one or two others such as Doug Williams and maybe Brad Johnson. But the list of QBs on Super Bowl winning teams is a list of very very very good QBs with somewhere around 10% being exceptions. And 10% isn't a model you want to build your attempt or your argument around.

Cowher's a lot better. He brought the Steelers to AFC Championships time after time with QBs like Kordell Stewart, Tommy Maddox, Mike Tomczak and the gem of the group, Neil O'Donnell. The instant he managed to get a real QB the rewards were fast in coming. You won't find many to rank Tomlin with Cowher, though Tomlin seems to be a fine coach indeed.

Nah, the Rams weren't quick. Their GM has been building that team for quite a while now. This'll be his eighth year there. Five years of building with results that weren't all that obvious, then he gets his franchise QB three years ago and all of a sudden things start looking better not just in terms of the roster but in terms of wins. It took a long time for that Rams team to hit the tipping point. This is an extremely consistent methodology problem people have when they talk about quick turnarounds. They ignore the years of work and losses that came before and only count the last two years, when the tipping point was actually hit. Sure, any turnaround will look quick as long as you ignore the first few years where the foundation was laid. But it's like calling an actor an overnight success after he suddenly becomes famous after eight years of waiting tables and failing auditions and taking acting classes and being thrilled when he was chosen for a Clearasil ad.

That's not fair lumping Unitas in there. Most of his career was pre-Super Bowl era and the part that wasn't was not the old, uninjured Johnny U. I don't think it's all that clear that Brady's the GOAT. But certainly one of all-time greatest few. Top two or three, and very possibly one. How did Belichick do without Brady? No franchise QB in Cleveland, and in his first year, playing with Bledsoe, they went 5-11. The next year, with mostly Brady, 11-5 and a title. Then you look at the year Brady was injured and they went a good-at-first-glance 11-5 against a stunningly easy schedule, in a year when the AFC East had such an easy schedule that the Fins went 11-5 as well. The difference between those 2008 Fins and the 2008 Pats was that the year before the Fins went 1-15, while the Pats with Brady went 16-0. That would seem to indicate two fairly divergent types of team. What you refer to as a solidified fact, that Belichick is more responsible, is neither a fact nor particularly solid. I really look forward to seeing Belichick play without Brady. Very very soon, hopefully. I think the Pats will be a good team with Belichick, but having side-stepped disaster with Garoppolo, I don't think they'll be regular champions anymore. Belichick does have a lot more impact than most coaches, much more. Because he's not a coach. Or put more specifically, he's not just a coach. He's a very under-estimated GM. As a GM he's put consistently solid rosters on the field, built with consistently smarter methods than most GMs. But he's been able to build rosters around one of the greatest QBs of all time, and more, a QB who was willing to be paid less than he could have gotten. That's a huge advantage for a GM, and a coach as well.

Belichick, because he drafted Brady. Kidding. Brady. Belichick's terrific, but Brady is the main reason, IMO.

Hard to know who he will look like when he develops. And so far he reminds me of a rookie with a terrific running skill set, a howitzer and accuracy problems.

We don't need another RB. And trading for a guy demanding a new contract, in his fourth year, is exactly how to start yourself down the road to cap problems. I like the player, but no thanks under the circumstances.

You say "corp players." Do you mean "core players" or "corps of players" or something else I don't understand? Assuming you mean "core," I think it's an interesting topic, but I don't see them making their mind up about anyone they have to have before around mid-season except for maybe Tre. I suspect he'll try to sign guys a year early so he can get them a bit under market value at a moment when it would benefit both team and player. I think they'll be forced to spend serious money on Tre, Edmunds and Dawkins of the bunch you mentioned, if they decide to re-sign them.

If he doesn't want to play yet, a one-minute conversation with coaches would accomplish that. A holdout would not be needed.

Not a real concern till camp starts.

Love your last sentence. Me too. But I'd expect a blowout loss. Why wouldn't you? Every team gets 'em. The Pats were squashed 34-10 last year against Tennessee. It happens. And Miami put up 189 yards of rushing on the Bradys, and the Fins aren't exactly a rushing juggernaut. Bad games happen. It's when they happen often or consistently that you need to worry.

No, he really wasn't. Not getting thrown to much doesn't make you terrible. Nor does having the ball not reach your catch radius, which happened several times in those games, especially when he was followed around the whole game against Detroit, by Slay, an elite CB. The NE game was very solid, where he caught 5 of 9 targets for 67 yards and a TD. Oh, wait, are you one of those guys who wants to say, "Yeah, but if you take out the plays that are inconvenient for my argument, then after that his game looks bad? 'Cause you're right. I won't even argue that. If you take out the productive plays, the plays people who don't like Zay would rather not consider, then yeah, what's left doesn't look that good. 'Course, the same would be true of any reciever if you don't look at his most productive plays. Pretty much everyone knows Zay got a lot better late in the season. Not that he didn't have bad games and good games. But overall, he got better. Got a quick quote for you: "I think we all can agree that Zay Jones is trending up." - Brandon Beane in the 2018 post-season press conference https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/12/31/18163024/buffalo-bills-end-of-season-press-conference-open-thread-sean-mcdermott-brandon-beane-josh-allen When he said it, not a single reporter disagreed, then or in print. Pretty much all of us do agree that Zay is trending up.

Nothing wrong with having expectations that are kinda unrealistic as long as you don't piss and whinge at 8 or 9 wins if that's what happens. If you're one of those who would react to 8 or 9 wins with, "I can't believe they didn't win 10 with so much talent," then yeah, you'd be falling prey to confirmation bias. 10 wins doesn't seem impossible or even close to it, but there's a reason that when you look around at the pundits, at Vegas ... everywhere, really ... that very few are predicting that. Yeah, the schedule's easy early. But it's hard late. The OL looks much improved, but based on history will take time to gel. We've got a 2nd year QB. I'd expect a really good defense, and an improved offense, but not as much as you're predicting. Long as you don't bet the farm, though ... My guess is 7 to 9 wins. If no real key injuries, I'd throw out the 7. An 8 - 9 win season with improvement by Allen, especially in accuracy, would really be a great sign for the future .

Putting someone in the same sentence, the same sentence, as something they're not has now become offensive? Come on. He said Sammy's contract was elite, and he's right. Read it again. " those contracts pale in comparison to the league's elite like Kansas City's Sammy Watkins at $19.2 million and Cleveland's Odell Beckham Jr. at $17 million ." He's saying the contract is elite, not Sammy. "If you depend on a #1 WR you are more vulnerable," you say? Well, sure. But having the guy far outweighs the vulnerability. Having an elite or franchise QB makes you vulnerable too. But it's a terrific problem to have. But as for whether you need one? Nah. Great to have but certainly not mandatory. All you have to do is look at a list of SB-winning teams and go through looking for #1 WRs. Maybe 20 - 30% have one. Which is about what you'd expect just based on chance. I did go through the NFL Game Pass footage after each game. They got separation. A bit less than average, though. This year's group should certainly do better. Agree with you on the #1 WR question. You need a solid group. Hopefully we've got that this year.

Having a bad offense and STs makes your defensive stats worse, not better. When you look at yards, having a few drives start from terrible field position doesn't matter. What matters is where the average drive start is. With points, field position on individual drives is huge. With yards, only the average matters. The Bills D faced the worst average drive start in the league. But that averaged out to opponent offenses averaging starts at the 31.36 yard line, which is only five yards better than the team with the best average drive starts, the 25.57. Since every yard counts the same, no matter where it comes on the field, average drive start is the key. Not true in scoring since one yard is way way more important in scoring than any other yard, the yard between the 1 yard line and the goal line. The other stat that kills defenses is the number of drives faced. The fewer the better. Because of bad offense, the Bills faced the seventh-most drives. And yet they tied for 2nd-best in yards per drive. This D was damn good. I'm optimistic about this team's future too. My guess is consistent improvement.

All true, but Points Allowed is far more of a team stat as opposed to a defense only stat than Yards Allowed is. If your QB throws a pick six, should that really count against your defense in any way, shape or form? No, it shouldn't. But if you look at Points Allowed, it is laid entirely against the defense. Further, points allowed is extremely dependent on field position. And defensive field position depends a great deal on the offense and STs. If your punter shanks a punt from your own end zone and it goes out of bounds at the 18, how difficult will it be for your opponent to score? I mean, your defense could allow zero yards and you're still extremely likely to allow three points which the Points Allowed stat lays at the door of the defense. Same with Plays Per Point Scored. How many of those points scored were the fault of the offense or STs? It's a very useful stat, points allowed, but there's major input from the offense and defense. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%. Whereas yards allowed has very little input from offense or STs. It almost completely isolates the defensive unit. As for plays run against your defense, that again has a lot of input from offense and STs. Does your defense face more drives than anyone else in the league? If so, they're at a huge disadvantage in terms of plays faced. Did they face fewer drives? Huge advantage. If you want to look at plays, you need to look at Plays Per Drive. That shows how effectively the D gets opponents off the field. The Bills were first in the league last year, in Plays per Drive. As for red zone D, being bad is not a good indicator but teams can be good while being bad at red zone D. It can work if you're bend and not break, not often allowing teams to reach the red zone. Though I certainly think they should shore up their red zone D. I do agree with you, though, that Lorax is aging and Kyle is gone and will be replaced by a rookie. We're losing veteran smarts. You're right that our pass rush needs shoring up. I like this defense a lot, but anyone saying they've lost nothing is overstating the case.

Actual long story short ... "There's a genetic component." But it's interesting. Thanks for posting it.

We did indeed have this discussion in the Wawrow thread. And you did indeed say that Lotulelei had a poor season last year. But you were unconvincing, then and now. There really is no special reason to think that McDermott believes what you believe, no reason at all. Lotulelei has always been a two-down player under McDermott. He's never been much of a penetrator. Phillips doesn't always play the same position as Lotulelei, nor the same technique or style, nor do defenses play him the same way. Lotulelei is consistently asked to eat space, and is double-teamed, while Phillips gets single-teamed but plenty. He simply hasn't earned the same respect from defenses that Lotulelei has. They might be hoping that Phillips will be able to take over for Lotulelei a few years down the road and possibly that he might be a bit cheaper. Who knows, it might happen. Sure, it's possible that Lotulelei is a healthy scratch. Same with Phillips. Oliver. Any of them. Again, though, no particular reason beyond your dislike of the guy and his salary from minute one to think that Lotulelei will be any more likely to have that happen than the rest of them.

Yeah. That's why so very very many really excellent players have terrible statistics. And so many awful players have Hall of Fame type stats. It's so common that ... Oh, wait. For those saying that stats don't tell the whole story ... very true. Nothing does, but you can certainly include stats in that. For those saying stats are nonsense and fake news ... that statement is nonsense.

Like stats are the key point here. They're not. Of course TV shows are for show. And it doesn't take stats to switch your opinion on cue. It's just as easy to do with "the eye test," or anything else, really. And while I'm sure there are plenty of shows out there that work like that, I'm equally sure that there are plenty of shows where the pundits say just what they feel and believe. The Allen example was pretty funny, but even as I read it was obvious that the writer was straining like crazy to tell each story, the story of QB A and QB B. I mean, to tell the story in stats for QB B, he had to use "Tristan H. Cockcroft's great Consistency Ratings [in which] our guy was tied for sixth in 'star' games." What? Please. Then he goes to "aDOT," Average Depth of Target. Which tells you virtually nothing usable about whether a guy is good or bad. Then he went to how many "fantasy points" that QB scored. And finally some good run stats. That's all the stats he had. Puh-leeze. What you've got there that means something is probably the good run stats. He's very right that confirmation bias twists more thinking than alcohol and mental illness combined, and that once you commit yourself to a viewpoint on a guy, you'll only see the stats, plays, comments, stories and "eye test" results that back up your opinion. He's very very right about that.

Your prediction is way way off from what the article suggests is likely. More, your argument that "But the QBs who do last in the league show marked improvement from year 1-2 with some outliers," is self-selecting. It's a bit like saying, "those who turn out to be good are pretty good." The whole article is self-selecting, as it only counts guys who got a lot of reps in both the first and second years. Guys who actually had a sophomore slump might well have been taken out and not gotten enough reps to be included, EJ Manuel for example. More, after the self-selection the article predicts improvement for the next year's guys ... Tannehill and Weeden. Who didn't improve. Beyond that, the average - again after the self-selection - is modest improvement. But you then predict numbers that would be a gigantic improvement and suggest a "huge leap." The article doesn't suggest that. That's your confirmation bias. I tend to agree about a relative lack of sophomore slump. Most NFL players improve their second year. The question will probably be how much.

In running, no. Josh is in another league. In passing, overall, yeah. Manuel actually had better stats, though basically both looked like rookies. Higher completion percentage, better TD/INT ratio. Josh has a better YPA, but not good, just less bad (5.8 to 6.5). Manuel had a much better INT %, a better passer rating. On the other hand, Josh did look significantly better at the end of the year. Can't be bothered to break them both down and look at how each was at the end of the year, but from what I remember, Allen at the end of the year was looking better than Manuel. Hard to say, though, maybe it's just confirmation bias on my part. I was hopeful about Manuel, but I think Allen has a significantly better chance to be good.

It's not a fluff piece. I absolutely expect improvement. And have no doubt that he'll improve, that he knows more or that he's smart and a hard worker. I absolutely expect significant improvement. It's reasonable to do so. How much improvement, that's the question. Plenty of QBs who will never be very good QBs still improve from their first to their second years. On the other hand, nearly every QB who turns out to be a franchise guy also improves. All of them do, really. We just have to see how much.