Thurman#1

The Bills were desperate to clear room on the salary cap, as Beane had flat-out promised the Pegulas to clear up by 2019 the serious cap problems Whaley left?

Nothing whatsoever wrong with this. Sammy doesn't have an attitude problem of any kind. A bit of social media awkwardness, but that's about all the problems he's got beyond how well he plays or doesn't. That linked story is from the Rams POV. Which is why they manufacture a bit of Rams-centric bitchiness. First, the Rams story is a response not to a public press conference but a different story from USA Today. That story doesn't even tell what question he was answering. So they could have asked, for all anyone knows, https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/chiefs/2018/06/11/chiefs-sammy-watkins-value-contract-statistics-andy-reid-kansas-city/691041002/ Here's the quote these Rams whiners are so upset about: "I just made the playoffs one time, and I want to have a successful career. And the only way to do that is to get with a good coach and a good team, so I definitely looked at the players and the quarterback," Watkins, who spent 2017 with the Rams after being traded by Buffalo last summer, told USA TODAY Sports at last week's OTAs. "I got a young quarterback who might play 15 or 20 years and be great. I didn’t want to be with an older quarterback. I came here to be with a young guy that I can grow with. I’m young, he’s really young. It’s a young team in general.” That's it. That's what he said. Guy must be on crack. Sigh. This is outrage porn, finding no offense to be taken so you make some up. Watkins never said that the Rams were included in the group he was choosing from. In fact, he almost certainly wasn't. As the Rams press says (far down) in the story, the Rams weren't willing to pay what the Chiefs were. Watkins was almost certainly talking about the group of teams that gave him the small group of offers he was actually making his final choice from. Which didn't include the Rams. If they'd wanted to be included in his deliberations, they could have ponied up. They didn't. Their choice. But don't then get all bitchy about being left out. God, is this ever a mountain out of a molehill. Hell, there's not even a molehill there.

Under some situations, not very low. If you're studying and holding down a fulltime job and bringing up a kid, maybe it's reasonable. But these players generally have tutoring, guidance in which courses to pick, someone calling to get 'em out of bed in the morning ... they're (not always, there are exceptions, but generally) pretty well supported by a staff that's used to handholding guys with limited academic skills though the system. See that show called Last Chance U. on Netflix about a JUCO for guys who've had problems? Fascinating. Some academic ineligibility comes from not being able to make it to class in the morning consistently. On the other hand, some comes from stuff like dyslexia. It's a spectrum. I wonder where on the spectrum this guy's problems fall? The coach's recommendation looked very convincing to me, though. Generally, the bad thing about supplemental draft guy is that something has caused them to be swept out of the system. That's not generally a good thing. It has to be factored in. Look at Josh Gordon. Spectacular talent. Pretty much of a train wreck personally. The good thing if a guy can live up to his potential is that you're arbitraging the pick a bit. There's a reason that in the draft value pick charts in the 2018 draft, a 2018 2nd rounder is worth a 2019 1st. Next year's pick is worth less to many to most teams that are desperate, because they don't like to give away a pick now and not get a guy till the next year. This is the opposite. You're getting a guy this year and not having to give up the pick until next year's draft. It can represent a bargain. But really it comes down to the guy.

The Pegulas agreed with Beane that the first two years would be spent cleaning up the horrible salary cap situation. Beane promised to take care of that. Bringing in a high-ticket guy this year is very very unlikely. They've had to strip the roster to get the cap under control. They are probably not going to then start to undo that progress. Next year they'll have a ton of space, though. For one thing, they generally keep more than $4 mill available for injuries. Both the Bills and Panthers when Beane and McDermott were there tend to keep at least $7 to $8 mill. Second, Allen hasn't signed yet, and they project him to be around $3.8 mill against the cap this year. So that will come off when he signs. Looks like you're right that Wood's dead money is already accounted for in these numbers. But that leaves somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 to $5 mill available, and they're likely to want to fill in with some cheaper pickups in camp or when other teams cut guys to get down to the 53. And that's not counting what ColoradoBills pointed out above about the roughly $2 mill for the practice squad and the move from 51 to 53.

He quit, decided himself to take the buyout. You're way overreacting with the wanting a guaranteed gig stuff. And that anger you saw, I would strongly argue, was as much your own perception as what Sully wrote. Sully was a grump and a crank, but he'd be the first to notice when they played well - which they tended to do for only short periods of time. I say this as someone with respect for you and your writing, but you are a die-hard Bills fan and IMO don't tend to react well when people are negative about the Bills, even when the team deserves it. That's the way it has looked to me, but feel free to disagree with me there. Am I wrong? Sully found plenty of joy in the Bills here and there, mostly when they played well. Which simply hasn't been often or consistently in a very very long time. As I've pointed out before, during the year Trent had that terrific start, when the Bills were 5-2, Sully wrote a column about how if things continued this way, Gailey would be a front-runner for Coach of the Year. When the Bills played well, Sully said so. But they have been a mediocre team for years and years. A guy who is paid to write a column on a team playing like that should point it out.

"Gleason and Sullivan ranked among the best-read writers for the paper’s website each week, based on metrics that DiCesare could access." ... and ... “'Times are tough for newspapers, but they kept that band together for a long time,' said an anonymous Buffalo News contributor, who also noted that morale at the outlet has taken a hit. 'Pound for pound, that was one of the best staffs in the country. But you’ve got to remember, many of the departures in the sports department weren’t forced. The News did not want to lose Bucky, Sully, Vogl and Tim. But they looked at how things were going, and decided it was an easy time to jump ship.'” Maybe some were sick of it, but obviously plenty weren't. Sounds like a lot of this comes down to the difference between the Buffalo News and the BN Blitz. Sully's comment on suddenly writing for the BN Blitz was really on-point. “We’re running a Bills site now,” said Sullivan. “It’s not a newspaper we’re talking about. It’s an online product specifically geared toward the Bills, which by its very nature becomes a more of a fan site.” That's perceptive and highlights a major issue I hadn't really thought of in the context of the BN Blitz. Buffalo Bills fans don't necessarily want balanced coverage. They tend to want much more positively-slanted coverage. They're team fans. Whereas newspaper readers and sports fans in general would expect balanced coverage, as it's what's been given and valued historically. BN Blitz readers paid money each month for basically nothing but Bills content. They self-selected as people who wanted more positivity about their Bills. Balance isn't what they were looking for. It's an interesting article. Good to know what went on. Seems like the News didn't handle this well, but in fairness, this industry is sailing into uncharted waters. You can't expect everything to go as smoothly as you'd hope.

This is a dullard's argument. I was pointing out that the first few games of a rookie's career can be awful without it proving he will be awful. Simply that. As expected of you, yet again, your first instinct is to throw up the straw man argument and pretend I was saying something I simply didn't say. Typical. I wasn't leaping anywhere. Wasn't even comparing the two as anyone reading the post without a massive ax to grind would have noticed. I was comparing their first four games. Nothing more. And I was comparing them because ... they're comparable. But since you started the comparisons, OK. You point out that Manning was the "1st overall pick with both physical and mental talent regarded as the most can't-miss prospect in a decade..." So ... what, that's supposed to mean it's OK? Makes it more forgiveable that he was a can't miss #1 overall pick while Peterman came out of Pittsburgh? It doesn't. They were both rookies extremely early in their careers making rookie mistakes. Thanks for making my point for me, that even some guys with much higher expectations look awful in their first four games. And as for how horrible the Colts were, it was their defense that was awful. Their offense was actually OK despite Manning's ending the season with 26 TDs and 28 INTs and a 71.2 passer rating. The Colts were the 12th ranked offense in the league, actually. 12th in yards and 19th in scoring, which is slightly better than the 2017 Bills offense managed. In Peyton's rookie year, the Colts had Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison. And Manning still struggled badly. I was pointing out that the first three to four games of a rookie's career often means dick. And I did so successfully, which wasn't difficult because it should be obvious to anyone. But if you must go there and directly compare their first games, fine, let's do it. You claim that I pointed out that Manning had a game where he threw 1 TD and 3 INT. But as I clearly pointed out, it was a great deal worse than that for Peyton. Peterman's first four games: 2 TDs and 5 INTs Manning's first four games: 3 TDs and 11 INTs Rookies often suck in their early rookie appearances. Sometimes because they'll never be good enough. But anyone assuming that early suckage proves the guy will never make it is simply making a dumb mistake. Sometimes guys suck as rookies because playing in the NFL, especially at QB, is really really hard and they need time to learn. And sure, I'll be anxious if Peterman starts. Did I say anywhere I'd be filled with total confidence? Anxious but a bit excited. Same with the other two. We haven't got a proven solid QB. Haven't had one since Bledsoe. Why wouldn't anyone be nervous no matter who starts at QB this year? If Peterman starts it'll be because he won the competition against a guy who's at least been solid when he had his chance in Cincy. So yeah, excited too.

That wasn't Tyrod struggling with three and outs and then improving. That was the offense of the Buffalo Bills, including both the extremely good run game and the poor passing game.

That's right, the team was over .500 when he started. Not Tyrod. The team. Again, wins is a team stat, not a QB stat. The correct name of the stat is "TEAM wins in games started by this QB (Regular Season)". Tyrod is slightly below average in terms of NFL starters. Definitely in the top 32 QBs around, but not high enough that anyone is going to want to make him a long-term solution at starter unless he improves a lot in the passing game.

Depends if the guy was good enough to spend the money and draft pick on. In general I'd rather see them trade down.

Very nicely put.

Harvin's first deal was a three year contract actually built to be a one-year contract. $6 mill for 2015. Yeah, they brought him back for the year you're mentioning but that first deal was a bad one and the Clay deal - while I like Clay - has looked so far like a serious overpayment. And if he never got to pick his head coach it's probably because he didn't force the issue. He had a chance to do so either time. Particularly with the Pegulas and Rex, if he'd said he couldn't work with Rex, they likely would have listened, as he was the main football guy at that time, really pretty much the only high-ranking guy left.

Yes, but the trade for Hughes was under Nix's watch. Whaley may have had something to do with it, but he didn't pull the trigger. I don't hate him either, but I'm very glad they moved on.

78%? Where are you coming up with that? Or maybe what stat exactly are you talking about? It certainly isn't what percentage of teams that win the turnover battle win the game. That's closer to 65%. https://fansided.com/2014/08/12/nfl-studying-turnovers-affect-winning-percentage/ So Salfino's stat on YPA is very interesting indeed, and is more highly correlated.

You're right. From now on, no Jim Kelly threads, Bruce Smith threads ... none of it.

Fair enough. But you must've been very unimpressed with Peyton Manning too, then, yeah? First three games he went 61 for 117, 52.1% completions, 2 TDs and 8 INTs with a YPA of 5.8. Wait, Peterman appeared in four games. Lemme take a quick look ... yup, Peyton wasn't much better in his fourth game, 19 for 32, 1 TD, 3 INTs. Plenty of rookies put up early stats that are in no way indicative of what they can eventually do. I'm not convinced yet about Peterman but I'm certainly interested, maybe even a bit excited to see what happens with him, and the other two as well. Rookies are going to tend to make mistakes.

Yup, I'm coming around. Originally I put Allen's chances at around 5% in case of injuries or a huge and unexpected improvement. Whereas now I've raised them all the way to 5 - 10% in case of injuries or a huge and unexpected improvement. That is indeed coming around to reality, the reality that Allen is performing just as expected. Like a rookie who is going to need time. Peterman's chances on the other hand, have been adjusted upwards as he's clearly doing better than I - and most - expected.

It's a far more interesting question as Peterman plays well. My guess now: McCarron neighborhood of 45% Peterman neighborhood of 45% Allen neighborhood of 5% - 10% in case of injuries or a sudden massive improvement

They're both still theoretically competing to start the first week.

Yup. He was extremely snarky but really smart about it. Crass on SNS? Yeah, at times. Fair enough. I can see people being irritated by it but that's the way SNS tends to go. I'm with you, though. I rarely spend time on twitter for any reason but on the very unusual sporadic times I checked in he generally made me laugh and had a good point or two to consider, I thought. Good luck to Tim. I have been a long-time BN Blitz subscriber. I'll stick with them for now, but I've never doubted the worth of their coverage and now I'll have my eye on how well they're doing.

Yup, he's a terrific writer. The awards he's won aren't by mistake. Wonder what the story is.

"Team Opponent Points Per Game"? That's a weird title. I could be wrong but I think that's looking at how much our opponents averaged over their whole schedules. Try this: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?seasonType=REG&offensiveStatisticCategory=null&d-447263-n=1&d-447263-o=1&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&tabSeq=2&season=2017&role=OPP&Submit=Go&archive=false&conference=null&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&qualified=false and click on Points per game. And try this: http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=SCORING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2017&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go That tells you how we scored our opponents scored points, showing that our STs didn't allow any scoring but that our offense allowed a pick-six and a fumble return for a TD (in the same game if I recall correctly). EDIT: The title is weird, but I thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink they maybe used points scored against the defense only. But even that's a bit hinky. We had 359 scored against us last year. Subtract six points each for the two TDs scored against our offense and divide by 16 and you get 21.6875, which rounded up gives 21.7, the figure your site gives. But that's also weird because they should also subtract the two extra points. But if you do that the final total comes out to 21.5625. But they have us at 21.7, not 21.6. I don't know. Weird.

So, between 1st and 4th ranked in the league? last year the team ranked #1 in scoring allowed came in at 15.8 PPG. Only the Vikings, Jags and Chargers came in with 18 points or less. The #4 team allowed 18.4, so we'd be ahead of that by around half a yard. In 2016 only the Pats and Giants allowed less than 18.2. In 2015, the Seahawks led the league with 17.3 and only the Bengals and Chiefs joined them at 18.0 or under. Yeah, I'd guess the likelihood of 15 - 18 PPG is in lower single digits. Hang on, no we weren't. The Bills allowed 22.4, which put us 18th. If you're subtracting out points not scored against the defense, did you do so for all the other teams as well?

Points allowed is a stat that relies on the performance of the whole team. Yeah, the defense gets the largest part, but it's probably somewhere around 65 - 75% of the responsibility. This is why game managing QBs are so attractive if you can't find a really good one. At least they tend not to put the defense into bad situations as often. The likelihood of scoring is wildly different based on where you get the ball. It's why field position is something that brings out ulcers and high blood pressure in coaches. Not to mention that points allowed includes points allowed on kickoff returns, punt returns, blocked punts that are run back, pick-sixes thrown by your own QB and your own fumbles that are run back for TDs by the opponent. Even though the defense has nothing to do with those plays, they'll be blamed for them by people looking at points allowed. My guess is that the defense will be significantly better than they were last year. Last year they were the 26th-ranked team, though I thought they were better than that showed. It's way way too early to guess but if I had a gun to my head I'd guess they'd leap up this year to somewhere around 13th.

Is that how it works? You take one game that fits your story and pretend that's how it all looked? OK, fine. Two can play at that. The Saints came into our home. And put up 482 yards on our defense and ran up a score so ridiculously out of reach, 47 points, that the offense didn't have the slightest chance of getting us in the game, much less winning. That shows as much about the season as did your one game example. As seems usual for you, you throw up yet another straw man argument. Just as I didn't claim yards was the "most important" as you said I did, I also didn't claim it's a "statistic in a bubble." It's not. But yeah, it absolutely separates what the defense is responsible for a ton better than points does. If the defense stops teams quick, the yards stay down. If they don't stop teams, the yards go up. Opponents can't run plays against our offense or our STs and have them affect the "yards allowed" stat. Only plays against the defense count, unlike the "Points allowed" stat where the defense looks terrible by allowing seven points if Tyrod throws a pick-six or by allowing three points if Shady fumbles and the ball is recovered on the Bills seven and the defense throws 'em back to the 20 and a field goal is kicked. Yards on the other hand are either allowed or not allowed by the defense and the defense alone. So yeah, yards do a vastly better job of isolating the units than points does. And sure Buffalo's bad offense had a bad effect on the defense at times. Know what also had a bad effect on the defense? Their inability to get off the field. The defense ranked 29th in the league last year in plays per drive. They couldn't get off the field. "How often was the Buffalo D out there," you ask? Don't ask unless you want someone to tell you. The Buffalo D was out there 175 times. Slightly below the league average of 179 times. Glad I could help you out with that. And in those 175 drives they allowed 1.99 points per drive, (23rd in the league) and 32.47 yards per drive (26th in the league). Oh, and while the offense was woeful in some ways, they managed games pretty well. That's why the defense faced less drives than average. The offense had few turnovers (8th-fewest), they burnt up clock with runs, and they ran more plays per drive than average (12th), resting the defense. And while our offense wasn't good ... wait for it ... that doesn't prove our defense was "great" and "wonderful." It wasn't. It was slightly below average, 20th, even if you throw out it's worst three games. Which you shouldn't do, by the way. This isn't a matter at which one of us will be proved right. The results are in. They weren't even good, much less wonderful. They also weren't as bad as many wanted to say. But "wonderful" and "great" they weren't. They just weren't. Not even if you throw out their worst three games - which by the way would make nearly any unit, defense or offense, look pretty good if you then compare them to the rest of the teams without throwing out their three worst games. Calling them wonderful or great is laughable. I'm sure they'd agree. Ask anyone on that defense or coaching staff if the Bills D played "wonderfully" last year.