Thurman#1

No, you said the deep and intermediate middle of the field was not a problem. But I shouldn't be surprised by your switching the ground yet again. It's your consistent M.O. Lose one argument, don't acknowledge it and move on to the next. And dude, you already gave us data on the whole season for the deep middle for those eight QBs. One week is an insignificant sample. Having said that, it's interesting that your own count here lists 15 QBs who threw one or more times to the deep middle. And Tyrod was 0 for 0. W hich coincidentally was his stat line there for seven out of the eight total weeks. Seven weeks at 0 for 0 and the one remaining week at 0 for 1. Yeah, I think we can all see why you don't think he goes there infrequently or has any problem there in the deep middle. Tell me, anyone else in the league have one or fewer throws to the deep middle over the course of the season? Anyone with any serious number of reps, that is? Or is Tyrod dead last in frequency of throws to that part of the field? And yeah, you pointed out that the intermediate middle isn't a problem, but then you gave no statistics, just a note that one QB had "about the same" numbers.

Typical Trannie argument. Blow hard about the deep middle, throw out a bunch of stats that prove the opposite, get proven spectacularly wrong, and then he changes the ground of his argument without ever admitting how thoroughly skunked he was. And again ignore the actual problem. Which again is not just the intermediate third. It is the deep and intermediate middle third. Always has been. Funny, in his post about the deep middle, he threw out the specific numbers of seven or eight QBs. After it was pointed out that the numbers said the opposite of what he thought, he switches to intermediate, but also changes from seven or eight QBs to just one. Hmmm. Wonder why that is. And Captain Miniscule Statistic himself doesn't mention any specific numbers this time. "About as much" as Wilson ... and Wilson only. Hmmmmmm. Makes you wonder.

The kumquat warbles at dawn.

He is being deliberately obtuse. His goal isn't correctly understanding the situation. It's saying absolutely anything to make Tyrod look good. If that requires responding to a post about scoring, clutch time and chunk plays by talking about third downs instead and pretending like he addressed the post, he's fine with that. He's interested only in spin. Not in understanding. But people can see that. It's spectacularly easy to notice. He isn't convincing anyone who came in neutral. Not even slightly close.

Again, same argument from Transie, and again, it's dumb. Yeah, Brady's thrown both deep and to the deep middle a lot less frequently than he's thrown short. Same with everyone else. Folks, pretending that deep throws only affect the defense on plays when the offense actually throws deep is missing the point. They have to defend the deep middle against Brady. Knowing Brady's thrown it there there 15 times out of his 43 deep throws you know you absolutely have to defend it. That affects your safeties on every play and your CBs on every pass play. Whereas with Tyrod throwing there one time out of 29 deep throws and 236 total throws you know you can move your safeties towards the horseshoe area where he actually does throw, short and towards the sides as you get towards the intermediate and deep areas. When 28 of 29 deep throws are to the outside thirds, the defense says, "Thank you for the tendency, Tyrod."

Thanks. I used the English language to communicate. And I succeeded, for the reason that Brady does indeed throw to the deep middle at a rate nearly 10 times higher than Tyrod. That's a fact. And as for the idea that deep throws aren't important because they don't happen all that often, that is a butt-stupid argument. Butt-stupid. Deep throws are extremely important, to both offenses and defenses, which is why many teams are looking for a deep threat every year. Will that deep threat only make a difference if they throw deep to him on half the plays? That argument is missing the point, and not by a little bit. Brady's only gone deep, according to espn, 43 times this year. He goes short much much more often. Does that mean his deep throws mean nothing? No, just the opposite. They're wildly important. They have a high probability of being major chunk plays or TDs. They're not that frequent but you don't know when they're coming. They move the safeties back and make running and short passes easier on every single play. So of course if you then divide that number, 43, up three ways for each third of the deep field, your total numbers will be small. But no serious fan should think those numbers unimportant because they're small. It's like thinking gold and platinum are unimportant because they're hard to find and rare. Tyrod having thrown only once to the entire deep middle third out of all of his 2017 throws (Thanks again for letting me know, Transie) is giving the defenses a precious gift. They know they don't have to worry much about that whole area. When a receiver fakes a deep post on a fly route, the DB knows it's either a fake or a route to an area the QB doesn't throw to and that you can wait a step or two to respond. Tyrod gives defenses a major advantage with this behavior. Tyrod's gone deep 29 times and only one of them to the middle. This helps defenses deal with Bills deep passes much more easily. Extremely clear tendencies like this are a gift to the defense.

Um, me. Or rather, it depends what you mean by a legit QB. If you mean a franchise QB, I definitely think the Benjamin deal isn't dependent on them thinking Tyrod is a franchise guy. Benjamin's under contract for another year and could be re-signed beyond that. And he's young. No reason whatsoever to think that if he doesn't make Tyrod a franchise guy this year then he failed. The guy is 26 years old.

There are studies showing that believing in "the process" works. It's useful in children's education, business, sports psychology and a ton more things. This isn't something McDermott made up. Carol Dweck is maybe the big name in this movement. I think everyone should watch this, its great stuff: Conversation on this site is not restricted to what is happening this year. And the past absolutely does influence the present, so it's extremely reasonable to discuss the past when trying to figure out what will happen in the near future. Bot of those posts certainly do matter this year. You might disagree with what they think - reasonably - but their posts were relevant. Also, if you think the Bills are pretenders, you're likely to want to think about what will happen down the road.

Yeah, there's a lot of hatred for Ducasse among Bills fans but neither one of these guys has played well this year. Miller appears to have been better suited for last year's scheme. I haven't concentrated on this spot but from what I've seen I thought Ducasse played better. Not really well, but better. This kind of sudden regression sometimes happens when schemes are changed.

Nice!!! But I hear Trump tried to prevent the move.

Good grief. Seriously, that's your argument? Good lord. You yet again ignore that I'm talking about ... let me repeat it again, because this you if anyone should have this by heart by now ... the deep and intermediate middle third of the field. Not just the deep middle third. The deep and intermediate middle third. But let's put that aside ... that's your argument about the deep middle third? That Brady goes there nearly ten times more frequently than Tyrod (4.8% vs. 0.5%!!!! That's supposed to make your case? That Russell Wilson goes there six times more frequently than Tyrod? Dak Prescott three times more frequently? Alex Smith six times more frequently? Big Ben eight times more frequently? Wentz almost seven times more frequently? Cousins almost four times more frequently? And Rivers four times more frequently? Those aren't my numbers, they're yours, right in a post that's apparently supposed to help your side of the argument. Dude, what were you thinking? And it's actually even worse than that. You said the Oakland game wasn't there in Tyrod's stats, so I went and checked on it. Tyrod didn't have one throw to the deep middle third, not one. So his percentage would drop even further when that game is included. Good grief. Thanks for your support, I guess. When someone throws up a blizzard of numbers people sometimes get confused. Very much worth pointing out that your numbers support my argument extremely well.

Folks, anyone see an obsession developing here? Or is it already well-developed and kinda pathetic? Trannie's responding to something that's not even there ... because it has my name on it, then guessing I might have said I'm in fear of his logic. Pretty sad. Honestly, I do sometimes start to respond to Trannie and point out the problems in his posts and then realize that those faults're already shining like beacons and I don't need to bother. Reasonable people will see them, and that's who I try to talk to. I don't do this only with him, I try to do it a lot. Like, "This was fun to write, but am I pointing out things that everyone who read the post already noticed?" A lot of times I am, and these days I try to shut up more often and that results in more non-posts and deletions. This was one of those times. But now that I realize the depth of his fascination, should I start replying a word or two to him and then deleting regularly? It seems to make him feel good. What do you guys think?

For the eight millionth time, I'm not talking only about the deep middle third. It's also the intermediate middle third. As constantly happens here someone is again twisting and changing what I said, setting up a straw man and then shooting their own creation down. It's both, not one or the other. The deep and intermediate middle third. Together. But fine, let's only look at the area you point out, GRB, the deep middle third. I was fascinated to find that there were only three guys with completions to the deep middle third of the field, but I found out you were right. The three guys who had completions to the deep middle third in Week 9: 1) Alex Smith 2) Prescott 3) Beathard 4) Goff (TD) 5) Brees (TD) 6) Brissett (TD) 7) Maybe Mariota (TD), but it's hard to say whether this is 20 yards long and thus intermediate or 21 yards long and deep. Wait, is that three? There were six and possibly seven guys (depends on what you call Mariota) completing balls to the deep middle third, including 3 (and possibly four if you include Mariota's) TDs. Six or seven major chunk plays including three or four TDs. Yes, it is important. And yet I'm not just talking about the deep middle, but the intermediate middle as well, and neither of us has looked at that here. I'm also not talking only about completions. Attempts there are also important, because if they come close, they make the safeties respect that area. The issue isn't so much whether they completed them. It's whether they tried them. Completing is the best outcome of course, but even attempting consistently means teams have to respect your willingness to go there, they need to move the safeties to more neutral positions, etc. Quick, point out where I insist it's a "critical flaw," as you say. As often happens, people pump up the verbiage in desperation, generally when their point isn't very good. It's a flaw, yes. It's important, as are pretty much all flaws and strengths. Critical? Please. That's two ways you're spinning my point like crazy.

Agreed. A troll is a troll. They are about 0.1% of the people on here. He isn't one. Plenty of people try to apply litmus tests to non-trolls. "You aren't a fan unless you ... (some arbitrary belief of that person). ... attend a game in person ... are a fan of every player on the team ... root for the Bills to win every game ... never want them to rebuild ... love the current coach ... believe that the current QB (or DE or LT or coach or whatever) can get us to a Super Bowl ... do NOT believe that the backup QB (or DE or LT or whatever) is better than the starter ... have at least three jerseys It goes on and on. All that kind of crap. You're a fan when you say you're a fan. The group of fans is a very varied and heterogeneous one, and that's as it should be. I disagree with a lot of what SaviorPeterman says, but he's obviously not a troll. He believes what he says and if you don't like it, you can put him on ignore.

Dude, enough with this nonsense. A Bills fan is someone who says he's a Bills fan, period. There are no litmus tests or fanhood threshholds. If he says he's a Bills fan he's a Bills fan.

No apology necessary, and as for senior moments, mine are probably well into six figures.

May have been a typo on your part, but for the record if they franchise him again it'll be $34.5 mill, not $44. Still a lot, I know, but not $44. I wouldn't mind us picking him up if Washington is dumb enough to let him go. Cousins has said consistently it's not all about the money, it's also about respect and feeling wanted. Washington has been contentious all the way. I'd give him $25 or $26 mill a year with a long contract and a strong guarantee. Doing that would mean we could use all our draft capital on OLs, rush specialists, TEs and all the various other things that they need. We could get them instead of trying to trade up for a QB. Cousins is no healthy Andrew Luck, but might be a lot more acquireable.

Dunno where we sign up,, but wherever it is, we should sprint there with a pack of 12 pens in case 11 are dry. The shoulder is a concern. The contract too. But your other points aren't really legit. One injury isn't injury-prone. He missed zero games in his first three years. His only injury is this one. They should have got him surgery immediately. And he was out-performing the hype till this injury. As for a turnover machine, he's a bit of a gunslinger, so you take that risk, but he's also a TD machine. Yeah, he gets huge money. He was very much worth it up till the injury. You've got two points there, not five. Yup, he's injured but plenty of QBs have come back from that surgery and performed well. Still, it's a risk. And yeah he's got a very high salary. Excellent QBs generally end up getting one and they're still very much worth it. I'd snap him up in a second, and I think all but about eight or ten teams that already have strong franchise guys would do the same.

Jets 4-5 Panthers 6-3 Broncos 3-5 Falcons 4-4 Bengals 3-5 Bucs 2-6 Raiders 4-5 Jets 4-5 Teams we've played: 30-38 Saints 6-2 Chargers 3-5 Chiefs 6-3 Pats 6-2 Colts 3-6 Dolphins 4-4 Pats 6-2 Dolphins 4-4 Teams we're gonna play: 38-28 Yup, the wins look less impressive, absolutely. Still not really sure what this team is. So, you would be no more impressed this year by whipping the Eagles than by squeaking past the Browns? Come on, nobody's talking about the value of a win. You're right the value of every win is the same but the impressiveness can vary wildly. That's true of any team in any year.

Nobody said he can't throw over the middle, at least not after any watching of tape. What happens is people watch the tape and say he has problems over the deep and intermediate middle, that he doesn't go there nearly as often as other QBs do. Then Tyrod's jock sniffers start saying, "People say Tyrod can't throw over the middle," and the whole argument is shifted. It all comes from Tyrod's most desperate supporters ignoring what's specifically been said. He throws fine and often to the short middle. Always has. Nobody should ever argue that. As for being a franchise QB, nah. Agreed he had a pretty solid game, though. The one before that was very good. But a game or two doesn't make a franchise QB. It's high level performance with consistency that does that. Tyrod has always had some very good games. And some very bad ones.

Or an unproductive passing offense, in which the QB has been a part of the problem. Certainly not the whole problem, but a part of it. ... wait ... a mediocre defense? Jeez. The whole rest of the team has been an awful lot more mediocre than the defense.

This headline was misleading. I thought they'd put out some kind of statement. Please, in the future, make the headline clearer.

This. Poor performance? Yeah. Getting their butts kicked? Yup. Quitting, no, and it's a pretty silly question.

It's not too early for wild card talk. It's too early for wild card talk that's anything but hot air and raw guesswork. But if hot air and raw guesswork work for you, you shouldn't hold back. The time for wild card talk that's sensible is when fairly large group of teams have been eliminated and the division pictures start to become clear. But hey, some people like to try to imagine details of the world 20 years from now, and if that kind of nutsy guesswork makes you happy, there's nothing wrong with it.

Now, I like chicken wings as much as the next guy, but good gumbo ... man, I still salivate hard when I remember the gumbo we had at a little stand near the Zulu Parade during Mardi Gras. Cost me $7 bucks and was one of the best meals I've ever had.