Thurman#1

Steve Young is an excellent example ... but for my point, not yours. By his fifth year in the league he wasn't starting in SF due to Montana being there but he was absolutely ripping up the preseason and in his appearances during the year as well. Not his fifth year in SF. His fifth year in the league. His completion percentage leaped up to 69.6%, , his TD:INT ratio went to 8:3 (at a time in the league when only one starter had a 2:1 ratio or better), and had the best YPA in the league. He had fully and completely arrived. If there had been free agency at the time, SF couldn't have kept him. He'd have torn up the league somewhere else. And you can say that in his first year as a starter in SF that he went 5-5, but besides being extremely misleading you'd be wrong. It wasn't Young who went 5-5, it was the Niners who went 5-5 in games Young started. Wins is a team stat. And again, that's wildly misleading. The Niners team wasn't particularly good that year (1991). But Young was terrific. He threw 17 TDs and 8 INTs in 10 starts and 11 games (only four guys had a 2:1 ratio or better, and 17 TDs was very very good back then. It tied Young for 7th in the league in TDs, even though he only appeared in 11 games.). Got an insanely good 9.0 YPA (best in the NFL) and a 101.8 passer rating (best in the league). And had a 64.5% completion percentage (3rd in the league). Saying that he went 5-5 that year is extremely misleading. Young was sensational that year and he had been excellent for two or three years at that point. And that sounds an awful lot like nonsense that Walsh said it was "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach." Like if the Niners had brought in Dan Marino it would have taken four years for him to get better? Nah. Not buying it. Where is the link to this Walsh quote you're talking about saying that it takes "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach"? I don't doubt for a minute Tyrod can improve either. Very slightly. But we know who he is. Next year he'll probably find a team that'll let him start because they've got nothing better. Maybe it'll even be a Texas or Denver situation. You watch, he'll be Tyrod, with the same problems - and talents - that he has already shown. We know who he is. Tyrod's had seven years. Again, of all QBs ever, chosen early or chosen late, with one OC or many ... all QBs ever ... only one guy, Rich Gannon, didn't prove himself a franchise guy in his first seven years and then did so later. Seven years is plenty of time to show what you've got. It's also plenty of time to develop habits - good and bad - that by that time are almost impossible to break. We know who Tyrod is.

Those aren't reasons to say McVay fixed Goff. They are reasons to say he helped Goff, which makes sense. What also makes sense is to point out that Goff's improvement absolutely helped McVay. And Cousins is a good example of why QB development is huge. In McVay's first year as Cousins' OC, Cousins wasn't all that impressive. 10 TDs and 9 INTs and an 86.4 QB rating. Then the next year, Cousins' light came on and he got a ton better. Did McVay help? Sure. Was Cousins' growth as a simple factor of time in the league and time on the field also a huge part of it and probably the largest part? Yeah, absolutely. If it was McVay, Cousins would have gotten better in McVay's first year, not his second. Many rookie QBs are absolutely awful and then take major steps upwards in their second year. Breaking news: many of those QBs do not have McVay as their coach.

I don't care that you don't care where a team starts. It's HUGE. There's a chart that shows the possiblity of points at each yard mark of the field. When you start a drive at the opponent's 20, your likelihood of scoring a TD is around 50%. Good field position is gigantic. http://phdfootball.blogspot.jp/2013/06/field-position-and-scoring.html http://www.drivebyfootball.com/2011/06/our-expected-points-model.html I don't excuse the defense giving up 34 points in that game. But that 49ers defense was terrific. Let me repeat, ""But his scheme is likely to win a Super Bowl only if nearly every other phase of team play is really really good." That's what I said, and it stands. Sensational defenses both years the Niners made the conference championship. The rest of that SF team gave them two terrific drive starts in the SB. Without that they're not even competitive. That team was spectacular all the way around. How did Roman's scheme do in 2014 when the team wasn't as terrifically talented? The defense drops to 10th in points - still pretty good but not great - and they go 8-8. Yup, good point. If the run game is your specialty, you need to have the lead a lot. You will have a hard time coming from behind. That means you need a good defense. And you need short fields often and you need the lead so the run game's clock-burning tendency helps you rather than hurts you.

Clay would lose us $2.5 mill. He might be a cut but probably not for the cap. More for injury / scheme concerns, if it happens, which I kinda doubt. Incognito would save us a bit of money, but if he's a cut it won't be because of the cap. Glenn would cost us as much in dead cap as we'd save by not paying him. We'd save like $100K. Lorenzo Alexander would save us about $2 mill. McCoy would save us about half a mill. I could see a trade where they get something back, but not a cap cut. I don't see anyone being cut for cap reasons, really. Lots of cuts, of course, but for other reasons. He'll be very expensive for them to re-sign. I can't see the letting Keenum go, but Keenum's a UFA and Bridgewater also isn't signed for next year. Can they keep both guys? It'd be seriously expensive. They might have to let one of them go. And I'm with you, if Bridgewater is available I'd like to see the Bills work to bring him in.

Agreed that Wanny was bad. But the thing that killed me about all those moves was the constant switch from 3-4 to 4-3 and back. You keep doing that and you will make good players into bad ones and you'll shed guys who then play well elsewhere. But though Moats, Mario, Carrington, Searcy, and Dareus played elsewhere, there were no world-beaters in that group after they left Buffalo. Just decent players. I just wish they'd have picked one scheme, 4-3 or 3-4, and when they fired a DC, they had then brought in a different DC who could at least have coached the same personnel lineup even if there were tweaks and differences between the systems. Instead they went back and forth and back and forth. It's where the Rex move killed us. We moved from a very successful Schwartz 4-3 to a system that needed different guys.

What did I say? Oh, yeah, "But his scheme is likely to win a Super Bowl only if nearly every other phase of team play is really really good." Yup, that SF team is a perfect example of that. I was absolutely correct. People forget that during their late comeback they had two drive starts inside Baltimore's 25 yard line. That was huge. One at the 20 and one at the 24. Ten points off that. The defense and STs put them in position to win that game, and they still couldn't quite do it.

But Roman isn't the DC in Baltimore. Assistant head coach and tight ends coach. He's not the guy primarily responsible for the offensive system there. That's Mornhinweg. They're 14th in points per drive and 24th in yards per drive. And that's with the best average drive start field position in the league. The defense and STs consistently put their offense in good positions.

Roman did a pretty good job covering up for a lot of weaknesses. He schemed brilliantly. But his scheme is likely to win a Super Bowl only if nearly every other phase of team play is really really good. He's a bit Paleozoic.

After that ... Zay Jones will be a second-year guy. He could easily improve. It wouldn't be all that difficult to bring Matthews back or to bring in another guy like him as a free agent. Clay should be back and whoever's next will probably have the good luck to be throwing to Shady as well. Once you've got your #1 guy, it's a lot easier to get by with complementary guys. As for your Pats remarks, how did Deion Branch do after he left New England. Ben Watson? Ben Coates? Amendola's never managed 700 yards in a season, not in his whole career. As for Gronk and Hernandez and Coates and Watson, I said WR. It ain't a mistake that when you tried so hard to find good pass catchers in NE, you ended up with a lot of TEs. And by the way, before he came to Buffalo, Clay was considered one of the best receiving TEs in the league. Then he got here and played with Tyrod and disappeared. Agree with Randy Moss and Cooks, but how many years of Brady's career did he have those two. Edelman? Yeah, maybe, but I'd like to see him on another team before I committed. He's a guy who just fits the system up there. The point stands. You brought up Brady as having good WRs, and in fact, through most of his career, he hasn't had very impressive WR groups at all.

Agreed. It has gone off the rails, and I've been a large part of that. It was a very interesting OP. Great job, TwoAndFourteen.

Good post. But I'd argue that personnel was at least as much of a factor as the coordinator was. The draft picks in 2010 were Spiller, Troup (might have been a terrific choice, but his back injury derailed his career), Carrington, Easley, Wang, Moats, Batten, Levi Brown and Kyle Calloway. Then in 2011, with the #3 pick, Dareus, Aaron Williams, and then nothing, really, Kelvin Sheppard, Da'Norris Searcy, Hairston, Johnny White, Chris White, Justin Rogers and Michael Jasper. I just want them to coldly analyze their problems and not make decisions out of loyalty. I'm not convinced that the problem is Dennison, but if they decide that he's a problem, let him go.

Next year will be Tyrod's eighth year. Not his fourth. He's not what Bill Walsh was talking about. We know who Tyrod is. Yeah, he might incrementally improve. But we know his capabilities at this point. Let's see that Bill Walsh quote. Does it say that guys who sit on the bench and learn for four years will still need four more years of play? Please. Name one guy outside of Rich Gannon who turned from a below average QB to a franchise QB after seven years in the league.

No, dude, it is. Case closed. It is. Wins and losses are a team stat. It makes about as much sense to refer to QB wins and losses as Long snapper wins and losses. As far as Rob Johnson and Doug Flutie, same deal. Wins and losses are a team stat. Simple. Wanna evaluate the QBs? Look at how the QBs performed. And Flutie and Johnson are indeed prime examples. Take 1999. The Bills went 10-5 when Flutie started. That makes Flutie terrific, right? bull ****! The offense scored 14, 17, 26, 23, 24, 14, 16, 13, 34, 23, 7, 17, 17, 31, and 13. They averaged 20 points a game. We didn't win so much that year because of Flutie. We won because of the defense, which allowed 14.3 points per game that year, 2nd in the league, and 252.8 yards per game, 1st in the league. Or take 2000. The Bills went 4-1 when Flutie started. Let's look at those five games. The Bills lost the first one. Flutie must have been terrible, because he started and they lost, according to you. Well, no, they lost 31-27. Flutie was 28/43, 2 TDs and 0 INTs and 8 yards rushing. But, no, according to this dumb idea of giving every win to one player, it was a bad game for Flutie, because they lost. It's not the defense's fault for allowing 31 points. No, it's Flutie's fault. Flutie's next game he went 18 for 35 with 0 TDs and 0 INTs and 15 yards rushing. Great game, Doug, because they won. Flutie's next start the offense scores 16 points and they win. Flutie completes 48% of his passes and has a passer rating of 71.8. Great game, Doug!! They won!! It wasn't the defense allowing only 13 points!! No, no, it was Flutie. Flutie's fourth start, he goes 16 for 26 for 171 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT, with a passer rating of 64.7 and racks up 6 yards rushing on 6 attempts. Excellent game, Doug!!! They won. It wasn't the defense holding Chicago to three points!!! No, no, it was Flutie's excellent play, theoretically. In his final start, Flutie really did have a terrific game, 20 for 25 for 366 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs and the offense scores 42 points. He really did have a large share of that win, which by the way was against 6-10 Seattle. Yeah, Flutie and Johnson had mostly the same guys around them on the Buffalo offense. But the teams Flutie started against ended the season with a cumulative winning record of 36-44, a winning percentage of 45%. Whereas the teams Johnson started against had a cumulative winning record of 96-80, a winning percentage of 55%. Put another way, of the five teams Flutie started against, three had losing records and two had winning records, whereas of the eleven teams Johnson started against, eight had winning records and three had losing records. In fact, of the games Johnson started, six of the eleven teams he played had win totals in double figures. More, there were plenty of games where both guys played. Look at game 15 where Johnson started and threw three passes before Flutie finished up throwing 25. Should Johnson really get the blame for that 10 - 13 loss, a loss where Flutie threw more than eight times as many passes as Johnson did? Or look at week 13 where Johnson was bad in a 33 - 6 loss. Johnson went 6 of 18 for 44 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs. Horrible. If only Flutie had been able to play ... oh , wait, he did. Flutie went 2 for 9 for 31 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT. Couldn't be that Buffalo's whole offense was simply outmanned, could it? No, no, Johnson started so he gets total blame for that loss. None of it belongs to Flutie or the rest of the team. The whole idea of giving all the credit for wins and losses to one guy is fundamentally flawed and dumb. Was it Rob Johnson that lost the Music City Miracle game? The idea's ridiculous. But if you look at pure wins and losses, Rob started the game and they lost, so it must've been his fault. Simply doesn't make sense. It is bone-stupid to try to give one person a win-loss record. It's a team stat. Yeah, some QBs have a huge impact on the game, and pretty much every QB has more impact than any other player. But it's a team game. Unless you believe that Trent Dilfer was sensational the year the Ravens won the title with him running up 7-1 record as their starter was because he was performing at Aaron Rodgers-like levels of proficiency, you have to realize the extremely simple fact that it's a team stat. Hell, the official name of that stat is actually "TEAM record in games started by this QB (regular season)" (my capitalization).

It does, sometimes. Partially anyway. You need a good offensive roster but yeah, having the right QB is huge. However, we're not going to have any QBs but Tyrod and Peterman on the roster when we bring in the next OC, even assuming they don't stick with Dennison. There's no particular reason to think that McVay fixed Goff. Goff went from rookie to 2nd year guy. He probably would have taken a huge step forward under any OC. McVay I'm sure helped Goff, but very likely one of the main reasons McVay picked that team is because he thought Goff had done pretty well for a rookie and had a ton of potential. Goff simply looked calmer in the pocket this year from minute number one. That's not McVay, it's just being a guy who has had the game slow down for him. Not saying McVay did nothing. But many here want to say that McVay is the only reason Goff got better and that simply makes no sense. We're going to have Kelvin Benjamin healthy next year. And you're overlooking the obvious about Brady. He's had mediocre to poor WR groups most of his career. He made them great. Granted, he's Tom Brady and not all QBs will do that for poorish WR groups. But you're the one who brought up Brady. And again, Benjamin will be healthy next year. He's a legit #1. And plenty of WRs make big leaps between their first and second years. Zay Jones might be the next one to do so. Or not, but it's certainly possible. Not to mention that Jordan Matthews has had fine production with people other than Tyrod throwing to him. Yeah, the WRs weren't good this year. There's a pretty decent chance we might be quite a bit better off there next year even without making a single move.

Interesting breakdown but a bit negative, IMHO. Most OC candidates, including the best ones, are going to come expecting to have to spend two or three years at the job. On nearly any team they would pick, but certainly here in Buffalo. So yeah, the WRs problem is likely to hurt the offense next year, as is having a rookie high draft pick playing some or all of the season. But if the offense shows improvement over the next few years, the OC will get a huge share of the credit. IMHO they're underestimating the lure of all those high draft picks we have. An OC would likely have a major voice in what QB would be brought in, including whether we focused on draft or FA QBs, or both. And we'll be able to get any QB but Darnold and Rosen in the draft we want, in a year where there appear to be four or five guys with a shot. We might even have some chance at either Darnold or Rosen, though at a guess that chance would maybe be somewhere around 30%. But this is a year when Cousins is available. Nearly any OC would lick his lips at that chance. And the OC will be able to chime in on that decision. They had some good points in that breakdown. This offensive turnaround is almost certainly going to take time, which makes it unlikely Shady and Incognito will be around by the time things start to look up (assuming Incognito's not gone in the next couple of weeks anyway). But a healthy Kelvin Benjamin is going to look a lot better than he did this year. He's a really good building block. And again, all those picks. If we bring in Cousins, those could be used to shore up the team a lot at various positions.

Nope. I believe this is the 8 millionth time this has had to be said, and yet it still needs to be heard, obviously. Wins and losses is NOT a stat for individual players. It simply isn't. It's a team stat. The fact is that Buffalo Bills have a better win percentage in games started by Tyrod than the Washington Redskins have in games started by Kirk Cousins. Know who is responsible for that? The Buffalo Bills and the Washington team.

No, I would settle for a better QB. Which would mean better results. Smith is a better QB. I would be very happy with that in a bridge QB, which is how I would want us to take Smith, drafting a QB high at the same time.

Yeah, I would. If they bring him back it would mean they thought he wasn't the main part of the problem. And they know better than us. I think a lot of that switch is that nobody else can really run Roman's system. Lynn had an advantage in that he'd worked under Roman and the players already knew the system. Roman had coached everyone through the preseason for the year Lynn took over as OC. Roman's system isn't easy to implement without Roman.

His five-year extension deal signed in August 2016 before the re-negotiation spread his signing bonus out over five years. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor-7899/ $5.56 mill in dead cap in 2019.

You're right on the Ngakoue penalty, but it was called a penalty. The tackle that caused the concussion wasn't cheap. Rough. Not cheap. There's a reason the commentary didn't even mention the possibility of a penalty there. No choke there either, The guy's arm was around the side of his neck, not the front. Yeah, he slammed him down but you're allowed to do that on a runner, which is what Tyrod is there.

Agreed Tyrod is better. But not much. And McCown is much cheaper. And can play from the pocket, the one thing that McDermott says is a necessity in his system. And would be a better clipboard coach for the new guy than Tyrod, IMHO. Assuming McCown came here for the same salary he got from the Jets (he'd probably be a bit more expensive, but not much), he'd cost us $12 mill less on the cap than Tyrod. Keeping Tyrod would cost us $10 mill on the cap this year and then $5 mill in dead cap next year.

Tyrod isn't cheap, not even for a bridge. It would cost us $15 mill more to keep him than to let him go, $10 mill more in 2018 and then $5 mill more in dead cap in 2019. He's not cheap. And Smith has consistently put up better YPC and completion percentage numbers than Tyrod has managed except for that brief period in his first year starting when teams didn't know how to handle him. 2017 YPC Alex Smith 8.0 (5th in the NFL) and Tyrod 6.7 (25th) 2016 YPC Alex Smith 7.2 (18th in the NFL) and Tyrod 6.9 (26th) 2017 Comp % Alex Smith 67.5% (3rd in the NFL) and Tyrod 61.7% (18th) 2016 Comp % Alex Smith 67.1% (6th in the NFL) and Tyrod 61.7% (21st) Those are two specific stats and it's more complex than that, but they're the two stats you yourself pointed out. Smith is better, significantly so. We should be drafting someone high. Smith would not be a good choice as the long-term guy, but as a bridge he'd be better than Tyrod and not significantly more expensive, though Tyrod's cap hit is partly a year later. Smith is also a guy who plays better from the pocket than Tyrod, and that's the one thing that McDermott has said is necessary for a QB in his system.

It's a somewhat bizarre system. Why are only 97 points available? Why are guys who play certain positions automatically given more value than guys who play other positions? It's also based on giving good scores to do-it-all guys who can do everything well. So if they were ranking Teddy Washington they'd have graded him down based on his inability to rush the passer. Nothing wrong with that, but it's taking points away from guys who aren't meant to be used as multi-use guys. IMHO our current interior guys with the exception of Kyle are mostly run stoppers, not much on the pass rush. It's safe to say they're not as bad as they're ranking them. Our interior line has been decent this year. Not a terrific group but not bad. Which is why even with our so-so LBs we haven't been awful at stopping the run through most of the season, thought there were some bad games and even runs of games. They also don't rank Coleman, probably as he was brought in so late. An upgrade would help, though, if they can get one.

The league year begins on 3/14. Only two days to make the trade.

Yeah, Fournette in Jax is in a huge market. They favor glory positions. Guys who've been on TV a lot and guys in positions that are more easily captured by stats. And offense.