Thurman#1

The Seahawks had Russell Wilson. He's been a top ten or twelve guy since about his second year. Eli has been up and down but absolutely a franchise QB with a good passing game overall and specifically in the years when they won, though admittedly the light came on very late in the year of that first Super Bowl win. If you think I said they have great passing games, maybe I mis-stated myself. But very good passing games? Yeah. Nearly all of those teams had very good passing games. Just look at the list of guys. Peyton, Ben, Eli (#4 in 2011), Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Russell Wilson. As you say, Flacco was on fire, though he has looked pedestrian since then. That's a list of very very good QBs, guys in the top ten or twelve. You can make a good argument about Peyton Manning that year, though I bet you'd agree they simply don't win that Super Bowl with Osweiler or Siemian. Manning wasn't anywhere near what he'd been and yet he willed them on in crucial spots and even when he couldn't win games for them because of that arm problem. he made good decisions with real consistency. Me, I figure it's about 10% of Super Bowl winners who didn't have QBs playing top ten or twelve ball. And you don't want to follow a model that wins that kind of percentage. As I said, I agree that game management should be better immediately. I just don't see this as a team with enough talent to do much damage, and especially so the year we input new schemes on both sides of the ball. It'd be great if I'm wrong, and that has been known to happen.

That smell is from the fertilizer I grew my stunningly terrific post on top of. Not only can I separate running from the whole QB thing, but I do Everyone should.. Running in a QB is fine. It's just not what you want a QB for. Having a QB who can run really well is like having a car with a terrific air conditioner. It adds value. It makes it a better car. But it doesn't mean all that much, it's just not what you buy the car for. You buy the car for getting you around. If it does that and has a great AC on top of that, terrific. You acquire a QB for passing. If he can do that and he can run also, that's great, You're right, it factors in, as an AC does. You need a QB who can run a good passing game. And read this again. I didn't just say, "full stop." I said, "not ... full stop." I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. I have been mostly avoiding Tyrod threads. Boring. So I have no idea what you said, nor am I interested in looking back when I don't know what I'm looking for. As a pure guess, were you talking about what I just talked about a couple of posts above? That there have been dozens and dozens of guys who like Tyrod spent three or four years on the bench and then got a chance? And that then outside of Gannon and maybe Plunkett none of them have gotten through six years of their career without becoming a franchise QB and then made it later? If not, I have no idea what you're talking about. If so, it took me about five to ten minutes to quickly come up with around a dozen guys who had the same situation, three or four years on the bench and a chance. Here's the list, quoted from my post just above. Ten? That's what, fourteen? There have been tons of guys in Tyrod's position, guys who didn't have experience for three or four years and then got their chance to start. Problem is that nearly all of them aren't good enough. And the ones who are have shown it pretty much immediately. Again, of all guys who hadn't proven themselves through six years as franchise guys, almost none have later improved enough to become franchise guys. That's the likely result with Tyrod. It'd be much better for the Bills if he makes that major leap upwards. He's a great guy. I'm rooting for him. History shows that his chances are far from good.

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that if we went back say ten years and checked the top four teams or so that it would all come out even? Seriously? Of course there are exceptions. That's why I said, "Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running." But it's by far the most common model of successfully building a Super Bowl winner. Oh, and those Broncos had Peyton Manning at QB for most of the year, though they supplemented with Brock Osweiler. Having Manning helped them. A lot. Their offense that year had four fourth quarter comebacks and four game-winning drives, according to ProFootballReference. He wasn't the old Peyton Manning, not even close. But he was still Peyton Manning. You can indeed win in many ways. As I have said before, I don't really care about winning alone. I care about being competitive for a title. Sneaking into the playoffs as a fodder team would mean little or nothing to me. And yeah, you can win a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. It's just the odds are much much worse that way. I see we agree about the record likely being around .500. Unfortunately. Not quite on Hauschka, though. I'm not sure he'll be better, just hopeful. I don't know enough about kickers to have much of an intelligent opinion. But as for the would've / could've / should'ves, I've never bought into that. Sure you can find some games that were lost and shouldn't have been. You can also find games that were won with the same kinds of ifs ands and buts. To me, it looks like you're adding four games there, not two. I'm with Parcells, you are what your record says you are. Guess we can agree to disagree on some of this stuff.

The four teams in the conference championship games were all in the top seven, Kirby. And you must have noticed that to start making claims about "teams with a bye." This means something. Are there other ways to end up high on that list? Sure, particularly for teams that are playing catchup a lot or just don't have a running game. But you know the old "some are more equal than others," canard. Same for stats. Being a good running team is less equal than the others. Last year those same four teams in the conference championships were 12th, 16th, 19th and 30th at running. All top seven at passing. Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running. And pass defense is more important than run defense. All four are important, but - and I know this seems tired enough to have to collect social security but it's still true - it's a passing league. Agree with you on game management. I'm not as confident about Hauschka as you but i'm hoping. IMHO scheme will be important as the years pass but won't see us making huge improvements the first year as guys get used to it. And I don't think a game or two makes or breaks a 7-9 team, not for being a competitive team anyway. My guess right now is another 7-9 or even 6-10 but with things looking better in 2018. It's early, though.

Nope. None of those guys, not a single one, was not a franchise QB by their fifth year. In Steve Young's fifth year he completed 69.6% of his passes, had an unbelievable 10.9 yards per attempt and nearly a 3:1 TD:INT ration at a time in the league when that was top two. Yeah, he wasn't a starter, because he was behind Montana but he was absolutely a terrific QB by that time and everyone knew it. In Kurt Warner's SECOND season in the league he was a first-team All-Pro. Not just a Pro Bowler, a first-team All-Pro. In Aaron Rodgers' fourth year in the league - his first as a starter - he was 4th in yards, 4th in TDs, 11th in YPA, 7th in passer rating. And then he didn't regress, he greatly improved his next year. These guys were all playing at an unquestionable franchise level by their fourth year. None of them even begin to qualify. And my question is extremely fair. The reason Tyrod has only been the franchise QB for two years now is because he was drafted by a team that needed a backup and he never forced them to look at him in a different way. There have been probably dozens and dozens of guys who didn't play much for three or four years at the beginning of their careers and then got a chance. Cassel. Schaub. Derek Anderson. Shaun Hill. Seneca Wallace. Damon Huard. Rex Grossman. David Garrard. Jay Fiedler. Hell, our own Kelly Holcomb. Jim Miller. Steve Beuerlein. That's, what, a dozen guys who had only a few little bit of work for three or four years or even more and eventually got their chance to be the starter. None were good enough and none developed and became franchise guys. Jake Delhomme was on the bench for two years before he started. But he quickly became a borderline franchise guy. He was what he was from pretty early on, a gutsy guy who was never going to be a top ten or twelve guy but was Carolina's franchise guy for years. The really good ones - Romo, for example, who sat the bench for two and a half years but looked good very quickly once he got out there - had become ready so that they were able to seize their chance like Rodgers. Of the ones who couldn't, none have even then later turned around and become franchise guys after not proving themselves as such for six years. Basically, Gannon is it. There's an argument to be made for Plunkett, though I disagree. And that's it. Maybe you can find another one somewhere, but I can't and I've asked others before and nobody else could either. It's simply extremely rare. Again, nope. He sat out for his first four years but after that immediately established himself. In his fifth year, his first as a starter, he was 12th in yards, 5th in TDs. Sixth year, 12th and 8th. He was off to the races very quickly.

Tyrod had a really good college career but it was about a lot more than his size that he didn't get drafted till later. 2007 72/134 53.7% 927 yards ... 5 TDs, 3 INTs 2008 99/173 57.2% 1036 yards ... 2 TDs, 7 INTs 2009 136/243 56.0% 2311 yards ... 13 TDs, 5 INTs 2010 188/315 59.7% 2743 yards ... 24 TDs, 5 INTs Those aren't really that impressive for college. They played 14 games in 2010 and that's not a lot of passes or production in the passing game for 14 games. He was already keeping his INTs down but also showing problems in the passing game. He was also already an absolutely excellent runner. But his height wasn't the only reason he was drafted later. Probably not even the main reason.

It may not be what you want to hear but from McDermott's POV the rationale is clear. He wants to do what he can to win this year. I'm not thrilled with it either, I'd rather have let Tyrod go and rebuilt with someone like Yates as the starter, personally. But if you care about this year and you want everyone to know it, you keep Tyrod and Yates, both. Yates did alright in Texas a couple of years ago as an injury replacement.

Great stuff. Thanks so much. Great to hear that Shaq Lawson is looking good. Quick question. Was Peterman's INT off a tip by the DL or off the CB's hands or the WR's hands, or what? Thanks in advance.

And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4. Just saying. Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later. And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.

He doesn't look like an average QB who will never be elite. He looks like a terrific runner who is a below-average passer who might someday scale the heights to average at the pass game. That's what he looks like. Agreed he doesn't look like he will be horrible. And it's not impossible he will greatly outperform expectations. But he didn't play well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition, full stop. He played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition ... based on the fact that we didn't have another feasible option. If we had one, he'd likely be gone.

This. The new offense doesn't require a running QB, it can accommodate one.

It does if you couldn't have done better. Because you certainly could have done worse, cutting him and getting nothing. Now if you're talking about the combination of acquiring AND dealing Cardale, no, the whole thing doesn't look good. But you've traded for a guy, he's yours. If you can't lose him and you get something for him that's a good thing. You can't get back that 4th rounder. That was a Whaley move and shouldn't be used to judge the new regime.

It's not unfair at all, not a bit. Before Whaley came on as GM, Nix (or previous GMs) had brought in Alan Branch, Mario Williams, Dareus, McKelvin, Gilmore, Kyle Williams, Kiko Alonso, Manny Lawson, Aaron Williams, Jairus Byrd, Eric Wood, Cordy Glenn, Robert Woods, Jerry Hughes, not to mention lower-level guys or guys early or late in their careers like Chris Hogan, Fred Jackson, Duke Williams, Da'Norris Searcy, Robey-Coleman, Garrison Sanborn, Moats, Stevie Johnson, Stefan Charles, Nigel Bradham, Alex Carrington and Corbin Bryant. There's some real non-Buffalo-dung talent there. There's the basis of a terrific defense, for one thing. Leave all those guys out and tell us about all the riches Whaley brought in. There are some, but not all that much. He has not been "more than good," he just hasn't.

It's what tends to happen when you're in serious cap trouble, and we were. We've climbed out of the worst of it, but it meant not signing a lot of guys and not rejiggering contracts to push the problems down the road. I don't think people are going to be much on McDermott's case if we suck this year. It's what is supposed to happen. Look at Vegas and their opinion about what people think about the Bills. Look at the pundits outside Buffalo. There's a real consensus that we're going to be bad. It's not like it will surprise people. It's the expectation and it's a common expectation for a new regime coming to a team that went 7-9 and didn't have a very impressive draft position to bring in quick impact players to help. They could go 6-10 without a rash of injuries, 6-10 or close. It won't be McDermott's fault, not in the first year. Especially now that players are hungry to sign for cheap and he's bringing in a few of those types, like Rambo. Agreed, they're not tanking but they're also not selling out to win now. I'd rather have seen them rebuild, but they kept Tyrod, Kyle Williams and a few others that make it very clear, but they didn't go overboard the way they could have to hurt their long-term chances.

The obvious things, I think. I'd like to see him throwing before guys are open, with anticipation. Stay in the pocket until it actually starts to break down. Go through more options faster in his progressions. And see things better in the deep and intermediate middle of the field. The quantitative stats won't mean much. The qualitative stats will. Nearly always when the film is showing a guy throwing well, the qualitative stats reflect that and look good. Plus one more thing. I'd like to see him not tail off at the end of the year. This is a new offense and will likely start fairly strong since teams won't have film on these guys in this offense. As they get film and figure out what's going on, they'll start to attack more intelligently. Good offenses / coaches / players adapt when that happens. Limited ones can't. This happened in Tyrod's 2015. His passer rating for the first six games was, if I remember correctly, around 20 points higher than it was in the last eight games when it dipped to pretty much the level he maintained this year. The same happened with YPA. Completion percentage too. He looked terrific those first six games and much more human thereafter. How he is performing at the end of the year will mean more to me than how he performs at the beginning. A smallish dip would mean little or nothing. A significant one would tend to point towards a failure to adapt. Agreed, it's the biggest issue and the most important stat. But it's a team stat, not a QB stat.

Seems pretty obvious to me that Sal was probably right. You're right too that it also was a chance to check out the backups in game action. But it almost certainly never would have happened if not for the injury clause in Tyrod's contract. They simply didn't want to take the risk of further injury when that would have meant that they would have been required to keep Tyrod - and at the old and very expensive contract value. It would have meant activating that $30.5 million that was guaranteed to him under the old contact if he was on the roster in March, and he would have been on the roster in March. It's been pretty clear that Whaley simply did not want to do that. And that Tyrod is here now for two reasons, first because he was willing to lower his contract and second because McDermott took over the reins of power. He appears to value Tyrod - at least with the new contract - far more than Whaley did.

I don't think too many were outraged, though honestly you could say that ice is cold and get some people crazed and offended. But I don't think upset in the scouting department after the draft will cause problems the same year. Looks like a lot of hoo-hah over nothing, IMHO. I think they'll be good. Still glad we made the trade, though.

Was it really clutch in the Seattle game? It sure was a good overall game, but on that final drive on the second and six play with 1:09 left, he scrambles right and ends up running ... and misses a wide-open, and I mean nobody within ten to twelve yards. They send two guys on go routes down the middle, one on the right and one on the left and both in the middle third of the field. The guy on the right beats his man by a step or a step and a half. The one deep safety goes after him. The guy on the left, Woods, is dropped by his cover man, totally dropped seven or eight yards past the line of scrimmage and is all alone. In the deep middle third of the field. Tyrod runs the ball for a four yard gain and Tyrod has nobody near him as he approaches the line of scrimmage near the numbers, but just misses Woods. Did he play well that game? Yup. And you're right that that 3rd and 20 throw to Woods on the sideline was flat-out terrific. But he wasn't clutch. Had the chance to take the lead with a minute left and couldn't do it. Oh, and where was Woods again on the play when he was wide-open in the end zone? Oh yeah, the deep middle third of the field. As for the 50 yard bomb to Clay against New England, it wasn't as good a throw as you're making it out to be. Clay was wide open with one guy six yards behind him and a safety seven or eight yards inside him and Tyrod threw the ball so as to stop Clay from running away from the safety. Clay had to flatten out his angle and it allowed the safety to get back in the play and bump Clay's legs just as Clay went for the ball which prevented him from getting his second arm around on the ball. If he'd made that catch it would have been sensational and Tyrod could have put it in a place where he wouldn't have had to make a terrific catch. It certainly wasn't a bad throw but it wasn't great by any means. Could've led him to open territory. You point to drops? Can't be bothered to look at them, though calling the Clay play you noted above a drop was very debatable, but every QB deals with drops. It's part of the game. You can point to lots of very nice catches too, the Woods catch on the sideline that you reference above. That was a terrific catch. Sure there were some drops but you could point to any QB and cherrypick some plays where the same thing happened. It's part of the game. You say, "He threw a touchdown pass on fourth down to Clay to go ahead against Miami with less than 90 seconds in the last game he played. Again, pretty damn clutch." Hunh? The Bills last possession in that game ended with 4:09 left in the game. With a punt. And if you were talking about the first Miami game, he went, what, 4/13 in the 4th quarter? He was getting a lot of pressure, and he absolutely did have that final drive to at least make it closer but they had three or four drives in that 4th quarter that went nowhere. Clutch is overstating it. Tyrod certainly shouldn't be blamed for all of Buffalo's problems last year. The whole team was bad except for the run game. But Tyrod deserves his share of the blame.

Yeah, I hope he has a really good camp, too, but my views on what a good camp would be for him have dropped with his minicamp performances. I just want to see improvement, that he's beginning to understand things. It was always a long-shot that he'd be starter-ready the first year, but even those odds have dropped. Hope he'll develop, improve and work on mechanics and strength that might allow him to throw with more strength. The velocity worries are overstated but a bit more wouldn't hurt.

And most make sense, certainly including this one. He didn't say that Kelly would necessarily succeed or become a franchise guy or anything like that. Just that he is talented, and particularly more so than the two Denver guys. What's the big deal about that? He was widely considered to be a very talented kid. If he didn't have his off-field baggage he might well have gone in the first.

Talking about Fantasy WR ratings and especially Donte Moncrief. Watkins is listed 20th. Burleson (at 36:07): You wouldn't take (Brandin Cooks) over Sammy Watkins? Brandt: I like to roll the dice, I go Cooks. Adams: No, I would take Sammy, I think Sammy Watkins has a way higher ceiling than Moncrief. Burleson: Really? Adams: If Sammy Watkins is healthy, yeah. Willie Colon: I think Sammy's foot ... in two years we may not see Sammy on the field no more. Burleson: No kidding? Willie Colon: And I think talking to the powers that be, I know some guys up in Buffalo, and they feel like even when he's off the field, it opens up the offense, 'cause now Tyrod's not focused on Sammy. It gives other guys opportunity to shine. So Sammy may be on the downslide of things. Adams: So you're taking Moncrief over Sammy. Colon: I am. That's what was said, as exactly as I could transcribe. Big plays: 100, which was 1st in the league Big rush plays: 77, which was also 1st in the league, and only three teams were over 60 Big pass plays: 23, which was 28th in the league Interesting.

There's nothing unreasonable here. He didn't make the choices, he just set up a mathematical system to pick highly-valued guys, and the Bills popped up. And with three in the top 25, he's right, it's worthy of notice, leading the league by far. four in the top 29 even more so. Worth noting also that he doesn't say that valuing a guy highly is necessarily bad. Von Miller is in the top ten, for instance, but he's just worth it. Whereas Dareus and Charles Clay have definitely underperformed. I'd argue that Cordy Glenn has earned his money, though. Patrick DeMarco, it's too early to say. As for what he said about Whaley, "Doug Whaley wasn't a bad player evaluator at all, especially given the bevy of street free agents who came into their own in Buffalo. But he consistently failed to properly value players." Yup. Dead on. Reasonably kind, even.

Coaching and analytics isn't separate. The best coaches use analytics, formally and informally, on a constant basis. And yeah, talent is huge. But analytics can also make a difference in getting bigger talent. For example, the Pats have been consciously attempting for years to gather as many draft picks as possible. They then sometimes trade them and sometimes use them, but they gather as many as they can. One example is how they've been consciously using the rules to get extra comp picks since well before the Belichick era. And it was a comp pick that was used to pick Brady. So yeah, having Brady helps. But getting Brady came about partly as a result of using analytics in smart ways.

I remember that play too, BKK. I liked that decision but most fans didn't. Yeah, they already know that. But the reason they know that is that the analytics said so. They said so probably ten years ago, but it was still analytics. So yeah, those particular numbers are too simple now, but there are tons of variations and the numbers are still being crunched, every week, in a ton of different ways, from which players with which body compositions need what in their smoothies to when should players be taken out in uncompetitive games to when you should go for two knowing your own kickers extra point kick percentages might have a slightly different answer than a guy with a significantly higher or lower percentage. There are a a million questions and a million variables and they haven't even scraped the surface yet. But they will. Come on, man, nobody's saying to completely eliminate the gut. Analytics just feed into your decision with good, relevant information. They don't 100% make it for you. Nobody is saying that.

I see what you mean. What bothers me most is the ultra-conservative moves that analytics wouldn't support. Marrone used to consistently punt on 4th and short from juuuuuuuuuuust barely outside field goal range. Even late in games when we were down. Used to drive me nuts.