Thurman#1

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.

Yeah, this. I disagree with PFF on that, but it's not unreasonable.

Thanks for clearing out the hyperbole, buddy. Now clear out the bull#### as well and you might really have something. Just for your info, two points: 1) Money matters, no matter how much you would like to ignore it. Sammy must thank his stars it does because he's gotten it in massive amounts without earning it. 2) Opinions and facts are not the same things. And even when uninjured, Watkins has simply not been productive on a scale anywhere near expectations, draft value or contract value. What Watkins has at this point isn't talent. it's potential talent, unrealized even while being thrown to by Mahomes and Goff, two of the best in the league. It's theoretical talent. Honestly, I like Watkins, always have. I hope he turns things around. But trading him made total sense, financially and in acquiring picks that helped bring in Allen. But also has made sense in terms of Sammy's production. And if you're frustrated and confused, don't feel embarrassed. It happens.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand again, you're just ... not ... getting it. Most of those shortened team builds you're talking about are the ends of three, four or five-year builds. Again, look at the GM. They'd generally been there quite a while, building and building. Rebuilds are tough. They're painful. And the first two years are guaranteed to suck. If you've got a potential franchise QB, as your examples did ... sure, reload. It can absolutely go faster that way. But if you want to reload, don't do it with a cap in shreds, Tyrod at QB, with a roster core built around two quirky schemes - Roman's and Ryan's - run by coaches you've just fired. Because of course, that would be a massive handicap to start a reload with.

And my response would be that they brought in plenty too many OLs too. They like competition. And had two receivers last year they thought fit in with their long-term plans as more than bubble guys or development plays, in Zay and Foster. Of course they brought in competition and numbers. And Zay could play slot and the others might move around depending how things fall out.

Huge? Hardly. But yeah, it's a difference but not in money per year, which is what I was comparing. And the devil is in the details. Cooks is likely to be there three years before they have a good chance to cut him. Yeah, on signing Cooks only got $20 mill guaranteed. But on the opening day of the league year this March just passed, another $21 mill was guaranteed for Cooks. Not significantly different over the first three years, and Cooks is pretty much a sure thing to be there for three years unless they want to pay $21 mill in dead cap.

Quite a few kids in college who will probably play at Zay's level within the next few years. 50 maybe? More. But as for guys who are right now better than Zay? Right now? 10? Maybe. How many college guys come in and manage a season as a rookie like 652 yards and 7 TDs as rookies? Now how many of those could do it without training camp? One? Two? I don't think he is the #4 on the Bills. My guess is he's #3. We'll see. You could be right, but so could I. We can agree to disagree, but yeah, I think he's top 100. 59th in yards last year. 55th in receptions. Tied for 16th in TDs. And did a lot better near the end than in the beginning. Absolutely top 100, IMO.

If that's his point, he again failed to make it. More potential, probably. Who else was on the team had nothing to do with it. Zay made the catches, catches from three different QBs none of whom was exactly a Pat Mahomes. And Zay was healthy for the whole year. And improved a ton later in the year as well. We don't know what Zay is going to be. He could greatly improve this year. This looks to be the first year he's ever been to training camp. And like it or not, money is a huge, huge factor in NFL personnel decisions, and Zay is going into his third year and will make about 1/16th of what Sammy will make this year.

... and that they'd have about $44 mill less to spend in FA this year ($12 mill in 2017 for the 5th year option, $16 mill last year with the new contract they'd have had to sign him to and $16 mill more this year) to and thus would not have been able to do anywhere near what they've done on the OL this year. Half of what we had to spend in FA this year. Money was a huge factor in that decision.

This. The Rams paid Cooks the same money that could have brought them Sammy ... but they also threw in their first round pick. They thought Cooks was worth a first-rounder more than Sammy was. And based on production, they may well have underestimated that difference.

There's no sense in making the analogy of Zay is to Watkins as you are to Garcia. More like Zay is to Watkins as the guitarist of Fish is to Garcia. Zay is in the top hundred WRs in the world right now. I'm guessing you don't fit at that level as a guitarist. (If you're in the top hundred, tell me, and I'll take it all back. 10x more talented simply doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Watkins didn't have more yards or TDs than Zay did last year. And yet Watkins made about 20x Zay's salary. Getting rid of Sammy was whip-smart GMing, especially as it helped bring in Josh Allen.