Thurman#1

Bill, I like your stuff, but this is getting really tiring. You said "It seems to me to be inarguable that when they form an opinion on an individual they see it through." I simply disagree. There's not much there to misunderstand. I'm saying that not only is in very very arguable, but that the evidence simply isn't there to show that. Less than three months into the Pegulas tenure with the Bills there's every likelihood they would have listened to Whaley if he'd been strongly negative on Ryan. They wouldn't have paired the two if Whaley had been strongly negative, they'd have stayed away from Ryan. The only alternative would have been to get rid of Whaley and they had nobody else at that point. And is it seeing things through when the Pegulas give Regier a new contract on Jan. 19th and then fire him in November of the same year? As for Roman ... you find it unbelievable, and yet it's never been argued by anyone. It's easy to believe the evidence supports your argument if you believe the evidence that supports it and don't believe the evidence that doesn't. That's called confirmation bias. That's enough on this for me. Have a great day. See you around the boards.

It's not inarguable at all. I'm arguing very reasonably that hiring Ryan was mostly on Whaley. Seeing them do things in some cases - without knowing what they'd have done if the advice they'd received had been different - doesn't show what they do in all cases. It just doesn't. Giving McDermott the power was said by the Pegulas not to be immediate but came from watching what he did when he arrived, and again is very likely to have resulted partly from Whaley's very weakened position. They watched Whaley be involved in two coach searches and then have terrible relationships with both. On Roman: "'This morning I informed ownership of my decision and they were supportive of it,' Ryan said during a news conference Friday. 'This was my move 100 percent.'" http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000703603/article/buffalo-bills-fire-offensive-coordinator-greg-roman The Pegulas had meetings with some players. And we know nothing of anything they thought or did as a result. That's not a good example for your argument. More, the decisions you're talking about came later in their tenure. The Bylsma thing came six years after they took over with the Sabres. Giving McDermott the power happened after three years handling the Bills for the Pegulas. The Ryan search came about two and a half months into their tenure. There's no reason whatsoever to think they'd have gone against Whaley if he'd been strongly against Ryan that early in their football venture. It'd be easy to imagine the Pegulas maybe not hiring a guy Whaley recommended if they just didn't like him. But putting a guy in to work with Whaley if Whaley said he didn't want him? Just wouldn't make sense. And in fact, nobody has ever suggested that Whaley was anything but positive about Ryan. Whaley was the guy who'd been around coaching and football. Whaley should have known even if the Pegulas didn't.

Fournette, unfortunately. Maybe Campbell. More fun if you're right, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I blame Whaley for that pretty much completely. He should've known and he should've told them. If they'd then overruled him ... then it would have been a Pegula decision. Whaley's the one who should have known. The Pegulas were new and not in a position to know. Agreed that the McD decision was on the Pegulas. At that point, they had pretty good reason to doubt Whaley after he was part of the decision on two coaches and couldn't get along with either one.

In any case, I wish Whaley the best. Seemed like a good guy. But I'd never give him a position in my (theoretical) team over assistant GM or better yet pro personnel director.

You say you'll tell me what is more idiotic than making bad decisions? Bill, IMHO nothing is. Big decisions are judged by whether they were correct or not. And when you're new in a field as the Pegulas were in football, you should listen to the professional advice you bought. When you're new in a field, your instincts aren't worth much. My bet is that if Whaley had nixed (heh heh) Ryan the Pegulas would've gone along with it. And held him responsible for giving them that advice, but they'd have followed it. No way to know, but that early on they'd probably have listened. Putting a coach under a GM who said he couldn't get along with the guy wouldn't have made sense.

That's probably a bit strong, but basically correct. If Whaley had said that he couldn't work with Ryan, the Pegulas almost certainly would have picked someone else. Having decided against a czar, Whaley was going to be the main football voice. You wouldn't go against that as a very new owner. Backing your own judgment is idiotic a lot of the time. If it weren't, why would anyone ever take advice? Or change their minds? Ross Perot had a chance to buy Microsoft for $40 to $60 mill at one point. Says it was "one of the worst business mistakes I've ever made." He backed his own judgment and it certainly was idiotic. Excite passed on Google for $750K. The Ravens gave Flacco a huge contract when they had Tyrod on the roster. People ignore good advice and make bad judgments all the time.

It's not a modest contract, not for him anyway. $16 mill in cash (salary and March roster bonus) in 2018, that's 10th. Cap hit? 17th, which is higher than he deserves and certainly higher than a bridge QB should get. And they'd still have to pay him $5 mill in dead cap to cut him after the 2018 season, only about $3 mill less in dead cap than if they cut him now. All for a QB who doesn't fit the one requirement that they stated for their QBs, that he has to play well from the pocket. I agree, you could do a lot worse. But when "you could do worse" is a major argument, that's not a good sign.

They, um, they have. Our offense is well below average in points and yards. And passing in particular. That's what teams want out of our offense, and what they're getting.

Franchise him? You're a hoot, Transplant. Franchise him??!!! Classic. I know you didn't mean it as a joke, but it is one. Says an awful lot more about how you see the world than it does about the world in reality. Tyrod doesn't qualify as a franchise guy, and those are the ones who are valuable. Franchise guys and those who might become one, and Tyrod doesn't qualify there either. That's why his contract is not particularly valuable right now. Or ever. It won't be necessary to keep him much less franchise him. The ones below franchise level are cheap, the Foleses and Cutlers and Fitzies and Tyrods. That's the group he belongs to. I guess in one sense it can indeed be said that his contract is valuable. Valuable as in overpaid for production.

Three defensive TDs. One pick-six and two fumbles returned for TDs. Which is around tenth in the league for non-offensive scoring. http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=2&statisticCategory=SCORING&conference=ALL&role=TM&season=2017&seasonType=REG

Rosenthal loves him some Tyrod. Always has.

I don't see a blowout. The Bills even have an outside chance for a win. The Jags are not a great team.

It wasn't so much a solid OC that understood Tyrod's limitations and strengths and used them to score more points than any Bills team in a while last year. It was really much more a solid OC that understood McCoy and Gillislee and the run game's limitations and strengths and used them to score more points than any Bills team in a while. Tyrod's passing yards and TDs were pretty close this year and last year. It's the run game that was massively more effective last year than this year. 2017 12 rushing TDs ( 4-way tie for 15th in the NFL) and 16 passing TDs (27th). Last year, 29 rushing TDs (1st in the NFL by a large margin) and 17 passing (27th). The run game was the difference. Going from 27th in passing TDs last year all the way to ... um ... 27th in passing TDs this year doesn't exactly show a major difference.

There were a few who said Tyrod couldn't get us to the playoffs. Most thought that he probably could, but that only a fanbase as abused as ours would make a big deal out of making it to the playoffs. It's not that big a deal for a QB to take his team to the playoffs. Last year Osweiler and Savage got the Texans there. Anyone want them as your long-term QB combo? So did Matt Moore and Ryan Tannehill get the Dolphins there. Again, anyone want them as your combo long-term? Have they proven anything? It's pretty common for a questionable QB or two make it to the playoffs. That's not the measure. It's being competitive for a title. Legitimately competitive. And unfortunately, this Bills team isn't. I wish they were but they just aren't. It hasn't been that long since Colin Kaepernick and Nick Foles got their teams to the playoffs. Kaepernick for a brief moment looked like the real thing, but not so much. Same with Foles. Under the circumstances, not much, probably. We're going to have three days after trading starts to work something out or we'll have to pay him that $6 mill roster bonus (of which $1 mill is already guaranteed anyway). It's due on 3/16. Teams under deadline pressure like that aren't in the driver's seat on trades. We might get something for him but it's not likely to be much under these circumstances.

Clearly they don't mind his mobility, they kept him around this year. You can be a guy who can throw from the pocket and still have mobility. Tyrod can't consistently throw from the pocket well. And yeah, that's a major short-coming. I suspect the same things you do, that the problems we've all seen bother them too, but we don't have a specific comment from McD about that, and we do about throwing from the pocket. They said before the season that a QB to play with them has to be able to throw from the pocket. Some mobile QBs can do that. Tyrod can't do it consistently.

It won't happen, John. Not that Tyrod won't play well. He might. He does sometimes. But not consistently. Not the way a team that expects to compete for Lombardis needs. They know what Tyrod is. One good game won't change anything. It just won't. A season might have, but he's had three chances to do that. A season might have, but a game won't. Yup. Tyrod was the QB of this team, a team that made the playoffs for the first time in 17 years. And Jordan Mills was the RT of this team, a team that made the playoffs for the first time in 17 years. And Vlad Ducasse was the RG of this team, a team that made the playoffs for the first time in 17 years. And Ramon Humber was ... I could go on, but the point should be clear. This may be a playoff team but it's not a very good team and starting on it in no way means they want to keep a guy and don't desperately need an upgrade. At QB, they want a guy who can play from the pocket. They gave Tyrod a chance to show he was that guy and we all saw the results.

Too old. Very fine QB in his day, maybe even now if he stayed healthy, but they need to find someone long-term. Can't see him picking the Bills anyway if he decided to come back.

You're being obtuse. You say that Tyrod was responsible for 54% of offensive snaps? Unimpressive. Most team pass more than 54% of all snaps. You say that Tyrod was responsible for 61% of the Bills total yards but most teams pass games alone are responsible for a higher percentage of their total yardage than that. Your stats are wildly unremarkable, and in fact below average even when comparing only the pass yardage and snaps of other teams against Tyrod's passes and runs. Tyrod got 65% of the offensive TDs? I compared Tyrod's passing and running QBs totalled, with only the passing TDs of other teams. Still well below average in the resulting rankings for Tyrod. I've spelled it out - clearly - twice now and this is the third time. If you're interested in a research project of some sort, by all means go and do it, but don't expect me to do it for you. Again, I threw all of Tyrod's pass and run stats against just the pass stats of the other QBs. And it still came out well below average. Exactly. It matters because the numbers it gives are high enough that at first glance it seems impressive for Tyrod. Transplant can practically hear people saying stuff like, "58% of something or other? And 65% of some other not real clear thing. Those numbers are over 50%, so they seem high!! And Tyrod's name is there, near high numbers. Hmmm." And for Transplant, that imagined response is enough.

Not sure I buy the premise about Davis Webb. If true, why wouldn't they have started him instead of Geno when they benched Eli? But if it's true, I'd offer both firsts this year and a second besides. If they argued, I'd throw in a 3rd. That ought to be enough assuming we don't make the playoffs this year and get an even lower pick. Don't know if I'd give up what you're suggesting. I'd seriously consider it, though, if Darnold doesn't stay in school and if they love him.

Sorry, but that argument supports my argument far better than yours. What happened when those NBA refs did that? It came out. And that's with a limited amount of basketball refs. For the NFL to influence games the way you're implying, all refs would have to be in on it. Know how long that secret, with lke a hundred guys in on it would last? Like a week if they were lucky. As for any games being affected by bad refereeing? Sure. Far more though are affected by bad playing than bad refereeing. Mistakes are made by any large group of human beings at a fairly high rate. It's part of being human. Errors, yeah. Huge shadowy conspiracies? No. It's nonsense. Apples and oranges. Do teams cheat to try to get a competitive advantage? Yeah. The Pats particularly but it happens a lot. And they get caught a lot but surely not every time. Nobody denies this kind of cheating goes on. But that isn't even close to the same thing as the NFL itself engaging in a wide-scale conspiracy to favor other teams. It just isn't. The risk/reward ratio for each team cheating for competitive advantage is just about infinitely better than it would be for a wide-ranging game-fixing conspiracy that would destroy the reputation of football for years at a time when the game is in an extremely vulnerable position anyway.

"We have the 8th worst defense by yards"? Wow, that's bad! If only the offense weren't even worse. 4th worst by yards. "We're 18th in points given up per game"? Holy cow! If only the offense weren't even worse. 24th in points. And that's with the defense and STs tied for 10th in non-offensive scoring, and with the offense getting better field position than the D ... the offense got the 18th best average drive start in terms of field position while leaving the defense the 28th best average drive start. The defense helped the offense quite a bit more than the offense helped the defense. The side more responsible for any success we've had this year is the defense.

Please. The links are the same ones you use all the time. NFL.com stats, mainly. But thanks for making my point for me. 10 QBs in the NFL ran the ball 50 times or more? Thanks. 19 QBs ran the ball 30 times or more? Thanks. But what I did is take Tyrod's passing stats and throw in his running stats and put the totals against the other QBs raw passing stats, ignoring any of their run stats. And Tyrod still came out well below average. Other QBs passing stats only, compared to Tyrod's total pass and run stats. And it still came out well below average. You tried to pretend this was impressive: And it's really really not impressive in any way. It's not remarkable that he spent a lot of time on the field in an ineffective offense and racked up below average stats.

Nice post. Just about says it all.

"Viable replacement," in the sense of someone who could take the snaps? Never. There's always at least a viable replacement, someone like McCown or Fitz or Tyrod or Foles or Osweiler or Siemian or Savage But he didn't say a "viable replacement." He said an upgrade. And that happens all the time. JaMarcus Russell was no upgrade from McCown and Culpepper, just as one quick example. Losman wasn't an upgrade from Bledsoe for another. Happens constantly. Tampa kicked Dilfer to the curb for Shaun King. The Steelers jettisoned O'Donnell for Tomczak. When a team has a guy who simply isn't good enough, taking a shot at replacing him is the commonest response, even if there's no obvious upgrade.