Thurman#1

After the injury to Matthews and Boldin's ducking out, yeah, they look pretty bad. No worse than several other bad years, though. Look at 2009 when the aging T.O. led the receivers with 829 yards and Evans had 612 on the other side, with Stevie Johnson contributing 10 yards, James Hardy 9 and Roscoe Parrish 34 and Josh Reed coming in third with 291. If Matthews and Boldin were still here we'd be quite a bit better than that.

We brought in Matthews and Boldin and used a 2nd on Jones. That's reasonable urgency, though you're surely right that it's not a top priority for them. I don't want them being urgent, personally. I want them progressing systematically and building towards the future.

Age doesn't matter, not in the first year. What matters is what they are two or three years down the road. That's the point. They switched systems yet again, throwing out a bunch of young guys who wouldn't have fit and building up their draft capital, and bringing in cheaper journeyman FAs who fit the systems. Now as time goes on they have said they intend to build through the draft and there's no particular reason to doubt them. Trying to win now is a secondary goal. It's something they thought they could possibly do while building for the future, which is their main goal. There isn't any doubt about that. They've said it. And they've walked the talk. If they'd been trying to win this year as their primary goals they simply would not have traded Watkins. They simply wouldn't have done that. As for tanking, yet again, there is no such thing as tanking in the NFL. You don't do less than your best with non-guaranteed contracts. It doesn't exist. What does exist is rebuilding. And that's what they're doing. However, you're quite right that they absolutely are not doing a complete rebuild. If they were they'd have jettisoned Kyle Williams, Tyrod, Lorenzo Alexander, etc. They didn't, and so we know they're not doing a complete rebuild. It's equally obvious that they're not re-loading and trying to win right now. If they were, they'd have kept guys like Gillislee, Watkins, Woods and Darby. I personally wish they'd done a complete rebuild. Now they look - yet again - like an eight win team or thereabouts, meaning they're going to have to use their trade capital to trade up most likely and get their new QB. A waste in my opinion. But they're not willing to be awful this year. Guess that's what happens when you put your coach as your defacto GM right up through the draft. Coaches are wired to want to win. But if it was their first priority to win this year, they'd simply have kept Sammy. "Anything you build, you want to build it from the ground up with a solid foundation," said Beane. "Rome wasn't built in a day. We're not trying to do this tomorrow. We're going to try to do it the right way and when it's meant to be, we'll get there, and I think everybody will see success." http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Beanes-team-building-rooted-in-proven-philosophy/ce524933-c08b-4c48-9bac-98f83936a1b1 Wanna be angry because they aren't focused exclusively on the future? Fair enough. They're not. A complete rebuild is what I'd like to have seen, personally.

That's some pretty serious exaggeration there, dude. Not sure if this has been updated to include this week's results yet, but in the first four games Clay had one drop. One. http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=nfl&rank=232&type=receiving

This is absolutely NOT a team that was built to win now. Their primary emphasis is in building for the future. They hoped they could also win now but that was certainly NOT their main goal. Trading Sammy was a move for the future, and as it is likely to give us a chance to select a QB early, it looks like a damn good move.

"... in trail technique." I absolutely love this. You know what they call "trail technique" when there's no safety over the top or anyone else around? They call it getting beat. You're right that he wasn't wide open, but he was open for the first down. The CB is both half a yard downfield of him and a couple of yards to Tyrod's right as Clay runs across the field to the left. It takes a good throw but not a great one. It's nonsense that that throw takes a Brady to make. If you can't make that throw with consistency you're not a franchise QB and probably not a QB that will ever have a team sticking with you for long as a starter.

Trust the process. Understand that this is the first year. Do NOT value the short term over the long term, as that is the strategy of losers. Keep your draft picks. And probably draft a QB. And a bunch of other people besides. And keep trading back and acquiring more picks once you've got the QB at least.

If there's one single symptom that you always see with bad QBs, it's excuses on the boards for him. The offense has been bad. The passing game has been bad. And Tyrod has been slightly below average since about the eighth game of his first year starting. You're right that the offensive personnel does not look good. But among that group is Tyrod. People here keep going on about haters. Not you, John, but you see it a lot. And there aren't any except maybe a troll here and there. What there are are a metric squat ton of unbelievers and doubters. And for very good reason. He seemed wildly unlikely to become the second QB after Gannon to make such a huge upturn so late in his career. And he simply hasn't. He's still playing like Tyrod, and it's too bad for the Bills and for he himself.

Nice!!

Andy Benoit too: "In third-and-long, the Bills have consistently called passes that attack short of the sticks, where the risk of turnover is low and the chance of punting to fight another day is very high. McDermott is known to be almost obnoxious in stressing turnover prevention." https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/10/04/nfl-buffalo-bills-sean-mcdermott-tyrod-taylor Obnoxious isn't bad, though. Not in a coach. Ineffective is bad. I don't see it as a big deal.

The Falcons were his second start ... but Joe B's film study had Dawkins as the best OL for the Bills in this game and their fifth-best player for the game. http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/joe-b-buffalo-bills-all-22-review-vs-atlanta-falcons-10_3_17-?page=2 "As White was outstanding on the defensive side of the ball, the team’s second-round pick Dion Dawkins just so happened to have his best game as a professional on Sunday. Dawkins was starting at left tackle in place of the injured Cordy Glenn for the second straight week, and really, he was the best offensive lineman on the field against the Falcons. This week, it was a bit easier on him from a matchup perspective as the Falcons had a backup player in the game due to injury. However, Dawkins showed much better in pass blocking than he had previously, and helped pave the way for some solid gains for LeSean McCoy on the ground. Dawkins’ most recent performance should just reinforce the point that the Bills just need to let normal starter Cordy Glenn all the way without feeling like they have to force him back into the lineup."

The exact figures are closer to 75 - 80% in games in which you're -1 in turnovers. Depends what years you're looking at. But almost 90% is a significant exaggeration. https://www.sny.tv/giants/news/numbers-dont-lie-win-turnover-battle-and-you-win-games/148654190 And it's also often a result as much of a cause. When you're down late and time is running out, you're going to throw that risky pass. You should. You take more chances. Same if you're far down. You start going for more chunk plays and taking more risks. And vice-versa, if you're ahead, you don't take risks, you run the ball and burn clock. That's not to say turnovers aren't important or predictive. They are. But not as much as you're saying here.

That study didn't prove that trap games don't exist. It proved that trap games by his definition don't exist. He defined them very widely in some areas - such that any over .500 team could have them, which is clearly nonsense, and very strangely in others - any game against a team below .500 when sandwiched between two games against teams over .500. Those definitions are pretty wacky. By those definitions trap games don't exist, but those are strange definitions. In any case, no team in Buffalo's situation could be feeling such unconditional confidence that they start to feel they could ignore anyone. It's a non-issue for this team.

Terrific starts don't always last. Remember Dennis Shaw? If he does turn out better than Tyrod down the road, would that be a huge surprise? Watson is a first rounder and Tyrod is a guy who looks like he's on the road to have a long career as a Fitz-type guy, good enough to make people dream but not good enough to win titles unless you have the kind of team around him that, say, Trent Dilfer had around him that one year. Too early to say, in any case. Could go either way. Tyrod's first seven games or so as a starter looked terrific.

The Falcons went 2-4 against the Panthers during those three years. And while Ryan wasn't awful those three years, he wasn't as good as he had been or as he is now. Throw out his first two years as he got used to the league and two of his three worst years (out of eight years, those were his 7th, 4th and 8th best years out of eight, going by passer rating). Except for those three years he's never been below 99 in passer rating in the last six years, and those years he went 89.6, 93.9 and 89.0. He really had down years. I agree with you that I expect the Birds to put up big numbers against our defense. I don't see us winning this one, though they certainly have an outside chance.

Not surprising. It will almost always be a division rival, what with having two games a year to run up stats, and the Bucs have been bad for a while, and while the Saints have been decent on and off, they're an offensive team not a defensive one.

It wasn't Kyle Orton who had us on the brink of the playoffs. It was the roster and coaching staff (including Dougie) of the 2014 Buffalo Bills. And you'll have to clue me in on the math that makes 18:10 equal 2:1. I get it, you're being sarcastic here, but in doing so you still fell prey to the belief that wins and losses is a QB stat rather than a team stat.

2013 - 2015 were Ryan's and the Falcons down years. They'd traded for Jones and lost most of their best draft capital for years and it really affected that team. 2011 10-6 2012 13-3 2013 4-12 2014 6-10 2015 8-8 2016 11-5 They aren't the same team they were.

The fake punt wasn't dumb, not at all. But it was really risky, and it didn't pay off. And yeah, the Von Miller penalty was just awful. Tyrod was cracking up. The flag should never have been thrown. And IMHO if that flag is never thrown, Denver wins, though there's obviously no way to know. Yeah, the Bills handled the punt really well. They didn't expect it, but were prepared. You have to give them tremendous credit. But nah, the INTs were just poor performances from Siemian. It's not like the rushes were from the blindside or something. The first should never have been thrown and the second should have been thrown five yards further, out of bounds. We got very lucky with Siemian's bad decisions there. The Bills pressure helped create the plays, but if that had been Tyrod (or Jim Kelly for that matter) we'd correctly have been yelling at him for poor decision-making. Those bad decisions weren't so much forced as simply made. Equally, it's irritating when people try so hard to mis-state what people say. He didn't say good luck never happens to other teams. Didn't imply it in any way, that's you creating poor logic when there's none in the post. Just because good luck happens to all teams doesn't mean it shouldn't be pointed out when it happens. We really did get lucky. Having said that, we could still have lost the game, screwing it up and throwing it away. And we didn't. We played a reasonably mistake-free game. And as many here have said, that's a very good thing. Still got very lucky, though.

If you love narratives to make a point, you must love your own post. SF "held Newton to less pass yards than we did" and that proves them good? Pass yards don't decide the winners of games, as Tyrod's defenders should know. The Panthers only threw 25 passes and still scored two passing TDs and 23 points and ran the ball quite well. They did plenty enough to win and the Niners defense didn't look especially good. And nobody says Watkins is soft. Please. They say he gets injured a lot, And this concussion protocol thing does indeed extend this string.

It isn't anger. It's precision. I said you cherrypicked and spun ... because you cherrypicked and spun in this case. If you do that you'll be called out, and you should expect it. You also post plenty of good stuff, though. I often really appreciate your POV. And now that I think about it, I'm really really tired. Maybe that affected my tone.

Agreed that there's blame to go around.

You did indeed put up this thread about his intermediate passing, not mentioning the short and long passing. And it's pretty clear why you did so. If you're going to cherrypick the one good stat and not mention the bad ones (short is 20th and deep is 23rd intermediate is 12th), expect criticism. It's warranted. You're spinning, not analyzing.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Good point. Thanks for pointing that out.

Royale, if you read that football article you're referencing all the way through it's exactly what's referred to in my article. It's USA football trying to focus on a short one or two year slight increase while ignoring a nearly 25% decrease over the six or seven year period including that slight recent rise. And that even over the one or two years when absolute numbers are going up, as a percentage of the US population the numbers have continued down. I live in Japan personally, have for 24 years, so I can't speak for that period but the stats are clear. Since the CTE stats came out, there's a major downturn at youth levels. Things go up and down. But over the long term plenty of sports pretty much disappear. Boxing and baseball owned America sixty years ago. Now they're way down from their highs. Go longer and you see much more change. They say basketball - worldwide - is the biggest youth sport. Stuff changes.