Thurman#1

Last year the #10 WR put up 1270 yards. Or if you go by receptions, the #10 (a different guy) had 87 catches. I think your co-workers are going to end up thinking you were awfully overconfident. But I do think Brown will turn out to have been a very nice pickup if he stays healthy.

Yeah, things like participating in democracy and enjoying religious freedom. Shame on them.

Same way as this year. Maybe one high-salary guy ala Morse, fill in a lot of medium- to low-salary guys to fill holes and create depth ala Beasley, Brown and the OL guys ... and don't spend it all at once. Not as many guys or as much money next year, though. Keep a very firm hold on the purse string so they don't end up in cap jail again as they were at the beginning of their regime thanks to Whaley's poor cap management. The difference being that they're finally going to have to start re-signing their core players next year. Keep enough money available consistently that they'll be able to bring back many (not all, it doesn't work out that way) of their core players consistently.

Nah. It's all about an awful lot more than that. The sarcastic folks responding above are dead on target, but thought I'd do my best to muster a serious reply. There's never been a rebuild that lasted two years. Reloads, yes. Complete rebuilds, no. This is the third year, but historically very very few rebuilds have teams in their third year become one of the handful of Super Bowl likelies. People mention examples of teams that have been quicker, and they immediately turn out to be teams that were reloads (the Dolphins trading for Pennington and running the Wildcat against a spectacularly easy schedule and plunging back to mediocrity the next year) or teams that had rebuilt and suffered for two or more years before hitting it big in the later years of the rebuild, such as the 49ers in their McCloughan-Baalke era or the Browns this year (assuming they're as good as they seem to look) following two years with a total of one win and a ton of accumulating of draft picks that resulted in their terrifically upgraded roster in the 4th year of their rebuild begun under Sashi Brown. As for whether it's this year that we need to learn about Allen, nah. It may very easily take another year or two. Some QBs work out as fast as their second year. Many who become successful don't do it that early. So it's not so much this year for Allen as however long it takes (or doesn't). This year's all about Allen? Again, it's just not that simple. They also have to show that they know how to build a team. So far they've looked very good, but it's all on paper so far. They still have a lot to prove, in many areas. "Why," you ask, "do all of the major NFL polls predict the Bills will finish 23-25 out of 32 teams??? Is it because of Cole Beasley, John Brown, Ed Oliver, Tremaine Edwards, Mitch Morse or Tre White?" Basically yes, it's because of those guys and the rest of the roster. It's because the Bills won six games last year and have yet to show they can do better. Allen's certainly a major part of that, but so is the rest of this team. Does the development of Josh Allen matter? Oh, yeah, big time. Is it maybe the most important of the many many issues they face? Arguably, yeah. But everyone already knows this ... it's been a huge focus on these boards since Allen was picked. But is this season all about it? Nah. This year isn't some make-or-break deal, far from it. And the whole process of revamping this team is much more complex than you make it out.

Mountain wave is a subcategory of lee waves. Lee waves absolutely can happen at ground level. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAMC-D-14-0270.1 And while wind shear is spoken of much more often at ground level, it's a phenomenon that happens at all altitudes, as are lee waves.

I disagree. The Jets aren't a great organization and so far I love Beane and McDermott, but they got out-planned and outmaneuvered by the Jets here. This is where they were at in January: "And thus, the Jets accomplish a goal. Based on the year-long focus on the position—Maccagnan had a scout live at just about every USC, UCLA, Oklahoma and Wyoming game—the feeling is they’re ahead of others in assessing the class. The hope is that readiness to pull the trigger before the market is fully developed could lead to a reasonable deal." https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/05/16/new-york-jets-sam-darnold-2018-draft The Jets consciously set out to be ahead of the other teams focused on getting a QB out of that class so that they could make an early trade. Smart, and it worked out just as they wanted. They put other teams, including us, in a terrible squeeze, knowing there were three QBs they would be happy with (Darnold, Mayfield and Rosen), so that if they got to 3rd, they'd be guaranteed one. But Darnold was their #1. Worked out OK for the Bills, and I'm sure the FO learned from it, but the Jets handled that just perfectly.

On the contrary, there are crashes that are associated. Here's a case of a DC-8 that lost an engine and 19 feet of a wing, though it was able to land. https://airfactsjournal.com/2017/01/mountain-wave-invisible-threat/ Most mountain wave events aren't more than scary, but at it's worst it can be very dangerous and even deadly.

People keep saying this and skipping one part of the trade, as leaving it out makes the return look better. They didn't just trade Teller, they traded Teller and a 7th for that 5th and 6th. So you could call it Teller for a 5th as well as the difference between a 6th and a 7th, which is damn little, but not nothing. IMO it comes down to their belief that they were going to cut him and weren't confident they could get him back for the practice squad. I think they'd have loved to get him back, but weren't sure it would be possible. It's an interesting trade. Reasonable for both sides.

Many more, IMO.

Agreed that McDermott didn't trust himself (or Whaley) to pick a QB and did the prudent thing to wait and bring in draft capital for the next year. Disagree that picking Tre had anything to do with how strong or weak the CB class was that year. I think they had him as their highest-ranked player when they picked and that's all there was to it. If Tre had been picked earlier, I think they'd have gone highest ranked regardless of position. Same with picking up Edmunds from a good LB class ... I don't think they were concerned about the class, they were just surprised to find Edmunds still available at that point. I just feel you're overthinking this. I think it's more about picking the best guy left when they pick. And yeah, need and positional value count as to how high you want to rate a guy on your board. It affects things a bit. Overall, though, (except for Josh Allen ... they obviously needed and were absolutely determined to get in on that QB class) it fits just as easily with the more obvious strategy that they've acknowledged of picking the best player. Don't get me wrong, I love Beane. I think he's really smart. But I do think the trend you're noticing is mostly coincidence. Guess we'll find out when he writes his autobiography.

Nah. Fans were jerks, he was injured. It ain't rocket science, or even single digit addition. And it's very rare to seek the money back. The Bills didn't seek repayment from freaking Vontae Davis.

Well, yeah, the Bears OC is irrelevant ... unless you're making the very very optimistic argument that you're making about the Bills OC. And it's nonsense that Nagy gets all the credit for turning around Trubisky. Some, sure, but Nagy isn't hanging out in only the QB meetings. He's the head coach. His OC will get a ton of the credit for the improvement of Trubisky and the offensive unit. The head coach gets the credit for the whole team. Below that level the credit or blame starts to fragment. Oh, and Nagy wasn't hired to run the offense. If he was, he'd be the OC. He was hired to run the team, that's why they hire guys for the head coaching job. Did he put more of his imprint on the offense? Sure. But the OC gets plenty of the credit there. The problem for Helfrich is that one season isn't enough. If Allen plays great, is McDermott getting the credit, you ask? Um, yeah, a very significant part of it. And Daboll will get a bunch and Ken Dorsey will get plenty, too. But with Daboll having had zero years of success as a pro OC till now, assuming he does have success in 2019, he'll be about as likely as Helfrich to get another OC job or particularly an HC job in 2020 as you're suggesting, after one pretty good year. He would almost certainly be expected to show consistency before he started appearing near the tops of coaching lists. I doubt either Bills coordinator will move on after this year, but if one did, it would probably be Frazier. 10% chance, roughly, IMO, unless we make the Super Bowl or something.

Yeah, but moving on from Watkins happened for two reasons, neither of which is true now with Zay. They were in major salary cap trouble and figured - correctly - that re-signing Watkins was going to cost huge money. Zay won't cost all that much unless he has a tremendous year this year. And the team isn't in the salary cap weeds anymore anyway. And Watkins brought in a 2nd round pick, which Zay wouldn't. And at the time we were desperate for trade capital to draft a franchise QB. At this point we've got Allen. The main reasons we traded Watkins aren't there anymore if we trade Zay. Not that we won't, but trading Watkins had two huge upsides that aren't there with trading Zay.

I read the whole story, and ... dude, Zay doesn't know he's in trouble. Does he need to continue to improve? Sure. But he has. And there aren't more than about 5 guys on this team who don't need to continue to improve. Zay more than many of them as he's still early in his career arc. But there's simply no way to know at this point whether he's going to be a cornerstone. It depends on what he becomes ... and like most guys this early, we just don't know that. We're talking about a guy who has been here two years and who missed most of the offseason both of those two years. We don't know what Zay will be. Not being a cornerstone is surely the way to bet, but it could happen. As for "fallen out of favor with this coaching staff," that also is far from clear. We should get a much better picture as the season progresses, assuming he's here, which seems by far the most likely alternative. This quote from Buscaglia, on the Athletic says it best: "The Bills need an answer on Jones following the season. They need to figure out if he’s going to be a part of their core offense or if they need to find a long-term replacement. They’ve liked everything Jones did in the offseason and how he’s improved as a route runner since entering the league. However, to think the Bills made that decision on Jones before the season even began is just a tad over the top. Like it or not, Jones will have a role on offense in 2019." https://theathletic.com/1159291/2019/08/24/seven-observations-from-the-bills-win-over-the-lions-josh-allen-leaves-the-fan-base-hanging-dawson-knox-surprises/

Very cool. Thanks for posting it.

Guess we'll have to disagree on that. Looks to me like that first line is only setting the scene by mentioning the far from definite possibility that Tyree might end up there. It wasn't his question. And, respectfully, even if it had been, discussing non-practice squad guys isn't really off the point. Putting a guy on the practice squad is a tactical decision affected by many different things, and I think the interest would be much the same if Tyree just gets cut and then gets picked up elsewhere, or gets brought back to the roster next year.

Gets props for it, yes. Gets an OC job after that one year, most likely not. Trubisky made a big jump, right? Did the Bears OC get a head coaching shot? Or an OC job elsewhere because he's a QB whisperer? Oh, and that's nonsense that "the prevailing wisdom is that Allen isn’t going to take a big step this year. They say Allen’s problem is accuracy and you can’t fix accuracy." They've never really fixed Cam Newton's accuracy either ... and yet I recall him having a big year or two. Plenty of people think he'll make a big step ... if you mean have a Trubisky kind of season. You're right that it's certainly not the consensus, but if there is a consensus it's that it's hard to predict how Josh will do. And yes, there's some respect for Daboll in the NFL. But it's not coincidence that before Buffalo his last two NFL jobs were offensive assistant and tight ends coach. One good year is not likely to be enough.

The only thing BS about that "guys couldn't get on the field" argument is that it debunks your argument. If your point "is, and has been, at this point it’s reasonable to consider him the worst that’s ever played," then for the third time, that is correct. It's correct to say so about Peterman and probably 1700 other guys who saw the field at least for a moment, and probably 2000 more who didn't get a chance ... because they sucked. It's certainly reasonable to guess that maybe ... maybe ... there were a quarter of a percentile or whatever who might have made something of themselves. But to pretend that anything but the overwhelming majority of them would have been any good at all is the worst kind of sad reach to pretend your argument makes sense. Say there were 1000 guys who never threw a pass. You'd have to be on LSD to deny that 750 or more of them didn't make it because they simply didn't have what it takes.

Not quite Bill, though he did mention stashing. His question was, " My question to all of those who know much more than me, "how many qb's started out on a practice squad and ultimately became a legitimate nfl qb starter or even back-up? I can't think of one, but I certainly could be missing somebody." Still, play on.

Yup. Absolutely reasonable. To say it about Peterman and around 1700 other QBs who accomplished even less.. And you're right that we don't know if a guy is worse when he didn't even play. Thing is ... give those guys the benefit of the doubt and intellectual honesty demands you give Peterman the same benefit. Listen, 'cause this is the truth. We ... don't ... know ... how ... Peterman ... will ... be ... thought of. Nor will we till the end of his career. Again, it's not over. It may be soon, but it's not. And if you don't give Peterman the benefit of the doubt ... and you clearly don't ... then a neutral observer who doesn't hate Peterman doesn't give any of those others the benefit of the doubt either. Most of them didn't play ... because they sucked too much to get on the field. Fair enough that out of those 1700 (I'm choosing that number because there are just over 2000 QBs with passer ratings, but there are probably another couple of thousand who weren't even good enough to see the field and get a passer rating) there might indeed be 20 or 30 who might have been good if given a chance. Maybe Hamdan was better, who knows, though I doubt it. But the vast majority of them simply sucked, and were never even good enough to get that chance, And again, you keep avoiding my point that several QBs who turned out to be very good, including two Hall of Famers (I assume Peyton will make it), started with comparable or even worse early work with Peterman. Can we say that maybe Peterman would be just as good if he'd been given the chance? Use that logic on thousands of other QBs, as you do, and in intellectual fairness, you actually have to say that. Peterman's near the bottom, yes, along with thousands of others.

Expect away. No penalty to it but very possible disappointment. My guess is 70 - 80%. Dude, please. One year does not make you a QB whisperer. It maybe gets you on people's radar. It especially doesn't make you a QB whisperer when you've had one awful year and one solid year with the current team, and particularly not when that big step is taken in the second year when many QBs take big steps, including QBs who end up failing long-term.

Glad you understand it's an opinion. I wonder why, then, you stated it as a fact. And no, it's not an especially reasonable opinion. Just to quickly pick out a few who were likely worse, I picked the year 2010 randomly and checked the 2010 NFL draft and looked at the last four guys drafted. Tony Pike spent one year with the Panthers, was put in in Week 9 after the first and second-stringers were injured. He was then benched after twelve throws. He was benched that game and never saw the field again and didn't make it through the next camp. Nobody picked him up. Levi Brown was the second. NFL stats, 2/3, zero touchdowns and one INT. A 33% interception rate. Sean Canfield was the third. All you'll find on his NFL stats page are his combine measurements and drill times. Never saw the field even in mop-up time. Zac Robinson was the fourth and he also never threw an official pass. Must've been smart, as he's an assistant QB coach for the Rams now. But saying Peterman is worse than all four of these guys simply doesn't make much sense. And yeah, your numbers are factual. If I'd questioned your numbers, you'd have a point. Thing is, I didn't. And more, you didn't even put those particular numbers in your post for me to see, so I couldn't have questioned them if I'd wanted. So that's one weakass argument there. As is the pretense that I said it was all someone else's fault. Nice little straw man there. If nothing I said is illogical ... yeah, make up a straw man, pretend I said it and then attack the argument you just made up out of whole cloth. Pretty pitiful. And no, "His performance in actual NFL games has been worse than any player with a similar opportunity" is yet another opinion masquerading as a fact. Obviously Gruden doesn't think so, for instance. And while I think Gruden's a nut, he's an extremely knowledgeable football man as well. And no, it really doesn't make sense that Peterman's the worst ever and still in the league. There are plenty of QBs who never made it out of training camp. Thousands? They're worse. And if he were worse than every single one of them, he wouldn't be getting yet another opportunity. "Near the bottom"? Ah, finally, something we can agree on ... but the bottom is probably 1700 QBs. And again, Peterman is still around. As I've pointed out there are guys who've put up stats just about as poor over their first season or first 130 passes and yet become reasonably to very successful down the road, including Peyton Manning's first 130, Matt Barkley's first two years, and even Terry Bradshaw's first year. Nobody would argue that Peterman's regular season performances have been successful. It wouldn't make sense to do so. But he's still in the league (as of today, anyway), for a reason. Well, the juice has been squeezed out of this one and there's nothing but rind left. I believe I'm done on this subject.

Damn, I hope when the terrorists strap a bomb to me I can handle it with more dignity than this guy. or So ... he hunts panthers with boomerangs? Yeah, right. Lemme see ... Dude, where can I buy one of those little things with the laser beam you got coming out of your back?

And you proved a few things conclusively there. What you didn't prove is that he's the worst ever. Nor will you ever prove that, as it's an opinion, not a fact. In fact, if you think you did prove that, it says more about you than about him. It would say you don't get the difference between opinions and facts. And it says that your feelings about Peterman are leading you towards irrationality on the subject. What you proved: 1) that Peterman has the lowest passer rating of any QB with 130 passes or more. That's it. That's all. That's only fact you've listed here. That you think that fact proves the opinion that he's the worst ever only shows your confusion on the nature of facts vs. opinions. "He's literally the worst player that's ever played the position," is an opinion, and not one that makes especially much sense. You know who's worse? Most of the guys who threw less than 130 throws and probably a bunch of those who threw 130 or more but were in better situations or had more experience or had better luck in their extremely small sample of passes. Again, four of his INTs were good passes deflected by his receivers up in the air for gifts. Take out those 4 and his passer rating goes up a ton. I'd do that for every other QB, but the work involved would be great. But there can't be very many players in league history who had 1/3 of their INTs come as a result of receiver airmails to the defense. Peterman got very lucky. Worth noting, though, that Hall of Famer Terry Bradshaw in his first season threw far more footballs than Peterman has in his career, and Terry managed a lower rating ... 30.4. Guys sometimes improve. Peterman might be one of those who does. Or not. But again, we'll have to wait and see. And that Gary Marangi was worse in his first 130. I'm sure I could find more. Not to say that Peterman's been good. Or anywhere near it. But the idea that you can prove him the worst of all times by a few stats is ridiculous. Again, if he were the worst of all time, he wouldn't still be in the league.

Yeah, it would probably explode. But that says more about fans than what it would actually mean. The people on boards like this are a bit nuts. It's why we're here doing this instead of something useful. And I include myself. But it doesn't mean much in practice, unless they were practicing something like avoiding INTs that day. In that case it would mean something. Otherwise, though, it doesn't mean much for Garoppolo and it wouldn't mean much for Allen. Not that I'm very confident in Allen. He's got an awful lot to prove. But the proof - good or bad - starts in the games.