Thurman#1

Targets includes stuff like being the guy in the neighborhood where the QB throws it away, not to mention just bad throws that go ten feet over his head. It's not a good measure of how well a receiver is doing, partly for the reasons above and partly because it's half on the QB. 1st Q 1:06 Allen throws to Zay's knees, catch, 11 yards 1st Q 00:26 Allen with a terrible throw, should never have been thrown and was underthrown besides, is intercepted on the sidelines as a defender undercuts the route four yards in front of Zay, but luckily he is ruled out of bounds on a call that was not clear at all. 2nd Q 00:13 Long bomb, 52 yards past LOS, on the left side, with Allen taking a long shot near the end of the half. The CB, Slay, is in front of Jones on the inside, preventing Jones from getting past. Jones steps on Slay's foot and they both lose their balance. Slay starts to fall but leans back to knock it away. Jones couldn't leap or fight well after stepping on the foot. The throw was a bit inside, as Slay had inside leverage. 3rd Q 8:22 Zay has half a step but isn't wide open. The safety is coming over but won't get there in time, as Jones is running towards the pylon. Allen overthrows him about 30 yards downfield. 4th Q 3:54 Zay coming over the middle sixteen yards deep. Ball is high, Zay leaps. Tough ball, thrown hard and high but though it was far from an easy catch (and it could have been, the CB was behind and nobody was anywhere in front of Jones, it could have been thrown with touch) it was catchable. 4th 13:47 A 17 yard comeback on the right near the sideline. Good throw, knocked away. Slay was behind Jones as Jones stopped and grabbed Jones, stopping him from coming back towards the ball. Should've been a penalty, IMHO. So Zay got his hands on two of them. Not six. Zay looks - to me - like a young guy showing improvement and promise but hiccups. Much like Allen, really. Both of them need to improve, both of them have a chance to do so with time.

It doesn't apply to a rookie QB. Or any other QB. It's a team stat. How well the MLB plays or the field goal kicker kicks or the KR breaks a long return or fumbles has nothing to do with how well the QB is playing. It really is that simple. Wins are a team stat. Which is why the official name of the abbreviated "QB Record" is actually "Team record in games started by this QB (Regular season)". Coloring and italics mine, of course. If you want to know how well the QB is playing, you look at how well the QB is playing. The statistical measures are things like completion percentage, YPA, passer rating, attempts, completions, yards, TDs, INTs, sacks, running yards, and I'm sure you can think of a ton more. And no, they don't tell the whole story, but they're the best measure we have short of in-depth game film analysis of all his plays.

There have been some nice catches. DiMarco's catch against San Diego with 13:48 left in the third quarter was a really nice catch. He's all alone running straight, completely uncovered and Allen put the ball over the wrong shoulder. DiMarco spun, jumped and fully extended but didn't get enough of his hands on the ball to control it but caught the loose ball anyway as he fell. A really nice catch. The replay showed how tough it was. Your memory's letting you down a bit, Happy. In the Charger's game the TD to Benjamin at the end was very contested, with one guy reaching for the ball and another drilling Benjamin as he brings the ball in. Ah, I'd forgotten about the penalty on this one. 3rd quarter in Houston at 5:54, Benjamin highpoints a ball with a guy wrapped around him for a 44 yard gain, but there was an illegal formation penalty which nullified the gain. Zay Jones against the Pats, 4th quarter 8:31, the Pats #1, Jones, arrives as the catch is being made and tries to rip it out unsuccessfully. I'm sure there were more. Not that I'm arguing that the Bills receivers are good enough. But they're not often getting put into situations where the plays are contested. Benjamin was, but this year for whatever reason he wasn't hanging on to the ball the few times it was contested. It was frustrating as hell to see that.

Watch the play again and check out in front of Clay. There's nobody there. He drilled it in when he should have put some touch on it and led him more. It was not perfect at all. But certainly catchable.

And conversely, let's trade up and give up the for the chance to bring in Sammy Watkins (and trade after three years), a guy who has managed 3571 yards and 28 TDs over five years. Woo hooo! Oh, and let's throw in EJ Manuel, CJ Spiller, TJ Graham, James Hardy and Marquise Goodwin!! Those picks were all great investments too, paying huge dividends!!! The problem with those defensive guys wasn't that they were defensive guys. It was that they weren't very good. Or that the Bills were locked into a constant cycle of changing schemes and thereby destroying the fit some guys had here. At last we seem to have managed to find some regime stability for a while. Now we mostly need to do a good job drafting and bringing in players. It certainly seems likely that this year they'll stress the offense more than the defense. But that doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as specific moves they absolutely have to make. They're not tied down to anything specific, including an offensive first rounder. I mean, if I were betting, that's the way I'd bet. But, actually, I wouldn't bet on that. Nothing's definite.

DEs who can rush the passer are playmakers by any definition. Very very rarely is one non-QB rookie worth more than a small fraction of a win, and that certainly includes WRs and OLs. It's the improvement of the system as a whole and a bunch of the pieces within it that builds and combines to make additional wins. Thing about rookies is they get experience as time passes. They don't always stay rookies. Any personnel acquisition strategy based mostly on improving the team next year only is so deeply flawed as to be more or less useless. They'll undoubtedly bring in serviceable FAs at WR, OL and pass rusher. This'll allow them to value talent and potential over position in the draft. Again, yeah, the likelihood is probably WR or OL. But if the draft doesn't fall that way, forcing it would not be smart.

It's an important difference? Fine. Go over to the university and talk to other pedants there about it. In the meantime the point here is that Josh doesn't make the ball available within catching distance as often as other QBs do. See how I avoided your petty distinction there? For the third post in a row, by the way. But feel free to keep on with this. I'm talking football. If you feel the need to continue talking physics and linguistics, do so, but I just couldn't give a crap. I won't be listening.

How could I have ever accused you of making a pretentious distinction? What was I thinking? Good lord! Silly me. How 'bout this instead ... Josh doesn't hit what he's aiming at nearly as nearly as high a rate as other QBs. See what I'm getting at here? Hopefully, that will change and he will begin to hit what he's aiming at more often. You keep saying that he gives his receivers an opportunity to make a catch. Problem is he does so a lower percentage of the time than average NFL QBs. That's why so many laughably silly people who don't care about the distinction you're trying to make here say he's inaccurate.

I'm confusing accuracy and precision? Good lord, that is one pretentious distinction you're trying to make there. They both refer to the ball going where you want it to go. Problem is, right now Allen is not consistently either one as often as other NFL QBs. There are plenty of plays when Allen's recievers can make plays on the ball. Unfortunately, he throws a significantly higher percentage of balls than just about any other QB where the receivers can simply not make plays on the ball. And as you hint here but try to avoid saying, beyond that there are also a bunch of balls which could be more easily catchable, lead to more YAC and yield better results if they were placed better. This could all change. I hope it does. It seems that he'd started fixing his mechanics in the offseason but has returned to bad habits. Hopefully he can eventually get these issues addressed.

I'd be glad to admit I'm wrong. But first, I'd have to be wrong. I am wrong plenty of times. But this time, I'm just not. It was both their fault and he absolutely threw the ball behind and short of Clay. Clay chased it but by the time he got there, the ball was an inch or two off the ground and it's very hard to get your hands under the ball in that position. Pro QBs are supposed to make much better throws than that.

"Bottom line is Clay has to catch that ball," you say? Nah. Or rather, if you're going to say that, you'd have to add this: And the other bottom line is Allen has to throw a ball that is more catchable. And he simply didn't do that. No, he doesn't have to hit him in the numbers. But you absolutely can't throw the ball eight yards away from the guy and far too low. "How many QBs," you ask, "even when being set with their feet hit a guy right in the numbers from 50 yards away? Very few." Yeah, fair enough. Now ask, "How many QBs - pros - even when being set with their feet throwing from 50 yards away, throw it eight yards short and a bit behind as well"? And yeah, the answer is indeed, "Very few." Ah, I tried to download a snipped photo from the All-22 and got told I could only download 204 KB. Too bad. But the fact is that Clay is a yard or two in front of the end line and drifting right. Drifting right was a reasonable choice, as one Jet defender is caught between two Bills. At that moment he's right in front of Clay, but is sprinting left to try to cover Benjamin, who has three or four yards on the defender and is also stunningly wide open and headed towards the middle of the field where there is absolutely nobody. The ball was thrown from the 40 yard line to a yard in the end zone. It was thrown eight or so yards in front of Clay and forced him to change directions to go make the play. It was a bad throw, a very significantly bad throw. It forced Clay to attempt to make a very difficult play. After the game, each of them said it was his fault. They were both right. They share the blame. And I wish Allen was pretty accurate. It would be really nice if he was. But that simply hasn't been true, unfortunately. He throws a lot of nice balls, but a higher percentage of bad ones than just about any QB in the league. Yeah, yeah, you're right that completion percentage is far from a perfect gauge of accuracy, and that you have to look at the throws. I have. So have the pundits. The reason they say he's got accuracy problems is that he's got accuracy problems. It's not real difficult to comprehend. Does Allen need more time? Hey, you won't get me to argue there. He absolutely does. It's way too early to know what he's going to be. But it's not at all too early to know what he is thus far. And thus far he's a QB who's doing far better than expected in terms of running and is doing exactly as commonly expected in the pass game in terms of having some real highlights but not being very good overall. They expected a guy who was simply not consistently accurate, and that's what he's been.

Statistics don't win championships. But has there ever been a team that won a championship with bad statistics? Statistics reflect what happens. Good teams win championships, and they have good stats. Did the Lions outplay us statistically? Net offensive yards are almost exactly equal, 313 yards vs. 312, though the Lions did it on fewer plays. Can we say they outplayed us on offense? OK. Believe it or not they had far more penalty yards against them than we did, 4 for 81 vs. our 3 for 20. That's unusual and maybe encouraging for us. You could say both defenses were effective overall. Did they outplay us a bit? But how about special teams? The stats show Detroit as 0/1 on field goals. And 1/2 on extra points. That's pretty horrible, and was actually the difference on the day. And on those days when you would say that statistics show that the better team lost, it's likely that watching the game would show the same thing. Sometimes one team gets good bounces and the stats will show that. Where are the championship teams with bad stats? There are a few teams that show poor stats for one unit or sub-unit, like the passing offense of the 2000 Ravens, but that just reflects reality. The Ravens passing offense really was pretty bad. But their defense was one of the all-time greatest and their run game was damn good too. Generally the stats just reflect what happened.

Fascinating thing is that all but nobody has played the position. So of course the critics are mostly guys who haven't played it. So are most of his biggest supporters and most of the more neutral folks besides. Romo, Quinn and Miller aren't supporters. They're guys saying he's doing OK right now for where he is but that he has a long way to go. As to your main point, yeah, ex-QBs probably are a bit more likely to be kind to a QB, and especially one so young. If you listened to those QBs they probably shade positive on Tyrod too. Yeah, sure, there are a few like that. And probably an awful lot more, especially here in Buffalo, who are just the opposite, howling at the first good play and disappearing when things don't go well. The majority understand, though. It's too early to know.

Yup, went back and watched this. It was illegal. He flew forward because the hit was in the back. Dirty play, and not really borderline either.

It's not like other QBs don't throw passes away. They do. And yeah, Allen has been inaccurate, at a much higher rate than most QBs. That's why you find a ton of stories about his inaccuracy. It really is that simple. Yeah, three passes a game would get Allen from 50% to the magic 60%. And three passes a game would get most QBs to the magic 70%. Thing is, it's really hard to get that much better. It doesn't sound like much but it's actually an awful lot. There's a reasonable chance he might improve in that way over the offseason. I'm hopeful. But it's far from a layup. Yes, I did. I was a receiver and a CB, myself. And your coach wasn't being literal. Yes, that's the way a receiver should think. But actually there are plenty of passes even in the pros when very good receivers get two hands on the ball and don't catch it and it's very understandable. When the ball is an inch off the ground and you can't cleanly get your hands underneath is one of those exceptions. Here's another thing your coach probably said, but to the QBs. "If you've got a wide receiver open by ten yards, with absolutely nobody near him, just throw the ball to him and hit him in the numbers." Josh has to throw that ball ... much much better. Josh had a guy wide wide open, had a chance to set his feet and make a full motion, and didn't get the job done. He did a terrific job to find that space, but didn't follow through. Sure, you can make justifications for Josh. But they make absolutely as much sense and no more than the justifications that can be made for Clay. They were both responsible. And Josh himself knows he should have made a better throw, as he made very clear.

Yeah, it's a joke, John. I forgot that Josh laid that pass right in Clay's breadbasket. After the game, Josh took responsibility for losing the game because of that pass. So did Clay. They were both right. Hard to imagine that anyone could ever disagree with you, huh? Anyone disagreeing with you must be joking.

I hear you. But it is possible to build around your QB while still spending the #1 pick on defense. Best guess is probably a WR or OL but pass rusher in particular would be a terrific get for the Bills as well if that's the way the draft falls.

I'm betting a borderline #2 or #3, myself. The best on the Bills? I doubt it, but possible, I think. A true #1? Nah. But there's still plenty of room for him to be really useful player.

Graham's smart, but wrong here, IMHO. Jerry Rice was 6' 2". He wasn't a true #1? That's crazy talk. It's not about height. The way it's generally used is pretty much how Bucky Brooks uses it here: "Sure, Brandin Cooks and Robert Woods are one of only three duos with 1,000 yards a piece (Tyreek Hill/Travis Kelce and Antonio Brown/JuJu Smith-Schuster are the others), but neither guy is considered a true No. 1 receiver with the capacity to dictate coverage through his presence and production on the perimeter. Defensive coordinators will take their chances in single coverage against Cooks and Woods, committing an extra defender to the box to contain Gurley." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000999729/article/saquon-barkley-validating-giants-decision-pete-carroll-for-coy By this definition, and most definitions, a true #1 is far more than the best guy you have on your team. The way it's most frequently used there aren't 32 of them in the league, or even 20. At any time there are generally somewhere between maybe 8 and 16 in the NFL and usually it's on the low side. It's hard to get one. When you do, you generally hold onto him.

Enough with the "Clay dropped pass" nonsense. Folks, face up to it, Allen was a huge part of the problem on that play. Clay had nobody within 10 yards of him, wide open in the end zone, and Allen threw the ball extremely inaccurately, turning a sure TD into a pass that was just barely catchable ... maybe. Both guys needed to do better. And yeah, there are problems with drops and with protection ... problems pretty much every other QB in the league faces. Is he "a few more passes per game being completed away from 60+% completion percentage"? Sure. So is every QB in the league a few more passes per game away from improving 10% in completion percentages. If a QB throws 500 passes a year, he's three passes a game from improving 10%. Thing is, getting that much better is not as easy as you're making it sound. That's how football and statistics - and the world, really - works. If you play significantly better, your stats and the impression you leave will improve. But at a certain level it's very hard to make those improvements, and until you make them, you need to deal with what is, not what might be if everything improves a whole bunch. I respectfully disagree with you that he's gotten more accurate the past few games. I do see him making better decisions and generally having stepped up his game from the time on the bench. But his mechanics are still off and because he's playing he will have little or no time to address that till the off-season, always the big reason he maybe should have sat the bench this year and learned defences and worked like hell on grooving his mechanics. But I see several passes a week that are just off-target. He can absolutely improve, and before the 2nd season is the time you often see the biggest upgrades. I'm hopeful. But while improving the personnel around him will absolutely help, it definitely isn't the whole answer.

They look at yards because it's how the NFL ranks defences. And for good reason. Yards are best way to isolate the offence from the defence and vice versa. Does it tell the whole story? No. Is it the one stat that best tells the story by itself? Yup. There is more to it but if you're going to look at one stat, that should be the one you look at. Here are the top ten defences, as ranked by yards allowed: 1) Bills 2) Ravens 3) Bears 4) Cowboys 5) Vikes 6) Jags 7) Chargers ? Steelers 9) Titans 10) 49ers Leaving out any discussion of the Bills entirely, is that a pretty good list of the best Ds? Are there any teams listed in the top five (leaving out the Bills, so the Ravens, Bears, Cowboys, Vikes and Jags) that don't absolutely belong there? Ranking teams by yards allowed produces a pretty good list of good defences, for exactly the obvious reason. Not a perfect list. But pretty damn good. No, the Bills aren't the best in the league. But they absolutely belong in this group of ten. And not in the bottom two or three of it.

You saw the games. And you still don't understand what those stats are supposed to tell you? Jeez. Well, I thought I'd already said that in my last paragraph of nearly every post I've written in this thread, but maybe I didn't say it well enough. Fair enough, I guess. I'll try it again. What those stats should tell you - about this game in particular and the season in general is this - that the phrase you used there ... "independent of the offence" is something that simply doesn't exist. Defences depend heavily on offences and offences depend heavily on defences. Sucky defences greatly impair the performance of even very good defences and in the Bills case ... vice versa and even more so. When you look at those stats and see that the average defence faces 10.9 drives per game and the Bills offence stayed on the field so poorly that the Bills defence that game faced 14 drives, that out of the 13 drives the Bills offence had they managed 8/13 three-and-outs, and 11/13 drives lasting five plays or less ... and 1/13 total drive lasting more than six plays, you ought to understand that the defence was exhausted and handicapped. When you further see the Ravens started four drives inside of the Bills 29 yard line, you should understand that the offence was putting that exhausted defence in untenable situations continuously. There's a reason they've allowed fewer yards than anyone else in the league. And that reason is very very simple. They're good. They're very good indeed. And over the course of the season they've proved that. No, they're not great. But damn good, yeah. Could they improve with another pass rusher? Sure. That and some time to develop this very young group. You're not wrong. But they're already very good. The best defences have games that aren't good. You can check the record. That's how it is. The ***** '85 Bears defence allowed 38 points to the Dolphins and 28 to the 2-14 Bucs. The question ... for the eighty-millionth time in this thread alone ... is how a defence does over the season. The Bills D has been damn good over the season.

So they're saying if McDermott was fired? Yeah, they haven't correctly calculated the odds on that. They're very very near zero this year.

The team, yeah. No disagreement. We're talking about the defense only, though. I'm pretty clear, as are pretty much all of us I think, that the offense and the STs aren't exactly dominating. Wins are a team stat, not a defense stat.

Getting a great player is worth a trade up, at least if it's not sacrificing 1st rounder or a pick that would prevent you from trading up for a possible franchise QB. They gave up the 22nd and 65th for the Edmunds pick and the 154th. If he turns out as well as even you think he might, it will have been a very good trade. Yeah, they could have used the 65th (the first pick of the third round, by the way, not the 2nd) to find an LB. Who wouldn't have been as good as Edmunds, in the McDermott scheme in which having a real stud at that position is necessary. Both the player and the trade make sense ... if he turns out as well as we all hope he will.