Thurman#1

Yeah, but the thing is that 40 yards more passing per game is huge. It's the difference between being 24th in the league last year (the Eagles at 224.1 YPG and 5th in the league last year (ahead of the Colts and Steelers tied for 5th with 262.6 YPG. To put that in perspective, instead of looking at passing yards, let's look at points scored. That's like saying "All we have to do is score six more points per game (the difference between 24th in the league and 5th in the league) and we'd be pretty good. Yeah of course you would. But scoring six more points per game is very hard. Same as passing for 40 more yards per game. "All we have to do ... " misrepresents the difficulty here. More like "Here's the major mountain we would have to climb to ..." That's being preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty optimistic about Shaq. If we put him as a guy who might make the Pro Bowl, we'd have to say that it's also true of about half of the guys at the position.

Bless you for your optimism. But this is the same stuff we hear every year. And virtually all of it could be said for every other bad to mediocre team in the league if you just change the names. What it amounts to is essentially "if things go really really well, then things would go really really well, and therefore I think there's a good chance that things will go really really well." Again, bless you, but the odds are very high against it. This year, anyway. Turnarounds when they happen generally - not every single time, but generally - take time.

Top five? Very unlikely. Not impossible. McDermott defenses in the past have taken two to three years to get really good. When you switch schemes that's what you should generally expect.

Used in coverage "quite a bit" is a real exaggeration. I remember seeing a story after the 2015 season when all the DLs complained about it showing that each DL had averaged a bit over a play a game in coverage. This was a change-up, not something they were doing all the time. But I agree that Dareus just hasn't been a force the past couple of years.

32 teams times 52 players equals 1664. 5% of that would be 83 players. Last year they got to 133 invites and were still going on the Tuesday before the Sunday game. http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/197015/2016-nfl-pro-bowl-most-declined-invitation-in-history And that 1664 is greatly puffed up by special teams guys, third-stringers, etc. Being voted in is still a real honor. Being invited as an alternate just isn't a real big deal these days. "Players decline invitations for a variety of reasons, including injuries and whether they are a member of a Super Bowl entrant. But this year has produced an increased number of players who were simply uninterested. "That has forced the league to push far down its list of alternates to fill some positions. Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Jameis Winston, named Monday as a replacement, was the eighth player at his position to be either invited or announced in addition to the six quarterbacks voted in. The Cincinnati Bengals' Adam Jones, named Tuesday, was the seventh alternate at cornerback." "The quarterback position has been especially hard hit. The Seattle Seahawks' Russell Wilson is the only player voted in who remains on the roster. Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton is playing in Super Bowl 50, but the New England Patriots' Tom Brady, the Green Bay Packers' Aaron Rodgers, the Pittsburgh Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger and the Arizona Cardinals' Carson Palmer have all backed out." "Bengals quarterback Andy Dalton, the first alternate, couldn't play because of a thumb injury that caused him to miss the playoffs. The San Diego Chargers' Philip Rivers declined an alternate invitation and the New Orleans Saints' Drew Brees is presumed to have done the same." "That left this collection of quarterbacks for the game: Wilson, the Oakland Raiders' Derek Carr, the New York Giants' Eli Manning, the Buffalo Bills' Tyrod Taylor, the Minnesota Vikings' Teddy Bridgewater and Winston." Let's review. That's fourteen QBs invited, out of 32 teams. Come on. Let's stop pretending that's a very big deal. Not 5% in any way shape or form.

"Possibly the best defensive lineman in the 2016 NFL draft"? That's really pushing it. Bosa was drafted #3 for a reason. And Buckner was #7 for good reason too. Lawson looks like he could be a very good player if used well, but he was never likely to be drafted in the top six. I don't think that's what Rex was hoping for when he was drafted. But yeah, it's a reasonable expectation. Tough dude, smart, good tackler, not a physical freak but looks like a good football player.

So, if things go well, then things will go well. This is much the same thing we've heard again and again. Every year, in fact. And with the details of the plays taken out it's what every team is hearing ... that we're tailoring our offense/defense to our players strengths and this will allow us to get better. Teams that switch coaches say this. Our schemes are better for our guys, so this will improve us. Thing is, defenses know those schemes and ways to counteract them. Defenses build around taking away offensive players' strengths and forcing them to rely on their weaknesses. I could imagine this might work to some degree, especially in the early weeks. I just don't see it resulting in the major improvements this article and many similar ones hope for. It'd be nice if I was wrong. I can see this defense making major improvements under McDermott. But I doubt it will take full effect for a year or two. We'll see.

We do, lots of them. An absolute certainty, no. But we know what's likely. No, Tyrod wasn't the reason we missed the playoffs. Nor was the defense. The reason - as it always is - was the Buffalo Bills and how good they were. But Tyrod was part of the reason. As was the defense. And the rest of the laundry list of problems.

I don't know much about Lynch, really, but I think you're underestimating Siemian. Siemian went into his first NFL action, in his second year, and came up with an 84.9 passer rating. And it was behind an OL that wasn't doing him any favors. He could be a good one. Still too early to say, but he did well for what a young inexperienced guy he is, a guy who wasn't exactly a first-rounder either. I think they're gonna be pretty good. But I'm no Nostradamus. We'll see.

Exhibit B of why doing a total rebuild makes a great deal of sense in the NFL is the other apparently very good QBs who'll be available. And Exhibit C would be what Cleveland did last year, drafting a sensational defensive difference maker and still having a ton of draft capital and being able to take a very reasonable flier on Kizer because of all the capital they have. Rebuilding isn't a guarantee. But it raises your odds. A lot if your talent is mediocre and you need a QB and difference makers.

Saying pretty much any QB in his second year is hopeless doesn't really make sense. Lynch and Siemian both have a reasonable chance to be good. Having two young guys with some promise is a very very good thing for them. It certainly is a bold prediction. I'd urge you not to bet the rent on it. Or even a bologna sandwich. They still have that defense. 8.5 is the over for them. And 6 for the Bills. Just saying. Respectfully disagree. They're promoting from within and probably will be using most of Phillips' system, and the new guy was supposed to be a serious up-and-comer. If they were switching schemes, I'd agree. It doesn't look like they are.

We'll see. I think you're being very optimistic indeed. They were 9-7 and they didn't get worse. I do like that we get them at home, that's a big advantage against Denver.

Automatic loss, no. Quite likely loss to Denver, yeah, I think so and so do most. Siemian was average, I'd agree, but in his second year in the league. He's likely to be improved and so is Lynch. I agree that Wade was a loss, but IMHO not a huge one. They have the personnel on defense to yet again be very very good. And they promoted from within which means a scheme change will not be necessary.

Pro Bowls - as an alternate - mean very little these days. When they held it in Hawaii guys wanted to go but these days guys discover dangerous cuticle injuries that prevent them from playing. Can't speak for Gugny, but I personally want him to be a top ten to twelve passing QB. Because teams with guys like that behind center are overwhelmingly the teams that win Super Bowls. That's how much better I want him or the next Bills QB to be.

That their offenses were pretty good? Quick quiz question: what do these teams have in common? The Texans, Chiefs, Dolphins, Giants, and Lions? They are the five playoff teams whose OFFENSE was ranked lower than the Bills at #16. As did the non-playoff 9-7 Broncos and 9-7 Buccaneers. I'll tell you what else all those teams had in common. They didn't win the Super Bowl. Generally true, but I honestly don't know if our run game could improve. They were insanely good.

Because something in the future can not be predicted with one hundred percent accuracy in NO WAY means that the idea of a system for success in football is bogus. There pretty much in human interaction is nothing that can be predicted with absolute accuracy. Doesn't mean there aren't ways to improve your chances. And that's what successful systems do, they consistently improve your chances, not just in football but in life. People often say the draft is a coin flip, that it's complete chance, and that simply isn't true. If it were pure chance, there would be as large a percentage of successful 7th rounders as there are successful 1st rounders. Good teams work little tiny advantages to improve their chances.

Sure, no absolute locks. You might get the next Len Bias or your guy might lose a leg in a car accident or lose motivation when he gets a few mill in the bank. But there are near-locks like Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. I'd go through the two horrible losing seasons of a total rebuild in a second for a guy like that. Plus it's not like if there are no QB locks that year you don't get anything at all. It's worth it to significantly improve your chances. I have no idea whether Darnold or any of these guys next year is one of those. But it's not like you only get the first pick in the first round. You get the first pick in every round. And you can do what the Browns have done and trade back and make sure you're in good position to get great picks for years. I wish we'd rebuilt this year, honestly. IMHO it would have been the best thing in the long run. Very much agreed, of course that they shouldn't reach.

It's not like the Jets are out for Darnold and nobody else. More like the best QB in the draft. If Darnold stays in school, it might disappoint the Jets but it's a long way from saying they failed.

Respect for Denver makes a ton of sense. They have two third-year guys at QB, both in a very good position to show a lot of improvement. They had nine wins last year with a second-year QB who'd never thrown a pass. This year that guy has a year's experience and the other guy probably is starting to understand what he's looking at. There's very good reason to respect them and predict a considerably better outcome than here in Buffalo this year. Heh heh heh heh.

Well, of course not. Of course how good the team is is going to have a great deal more impact on their record than projected strength of schedule. Duh. The question isn't whether projected strength of schedule correlates to wins. It's whether projected strength of schedule correlates to actual strength of schedule and how strongly. And how actual strength of schedule correlates to wins and how strongly. Plus, as Zonabb says above, one season of data says very very little in terms of proof anyway.

Yes, the Bears had a lot of injuries in 2016, as the chart shows. Rusty Jones retired in 2013. During the Rusty Jones era, the Bears overall had few injuries, even when they weren't a particularly good team. The Bills indeed went up and down but overall their injury level since Rusty left has been high.

I thought he addressed that very clearly. He's not saying that once you have a failed culture you are trapped there forever and can never ever turn things around. In fact he says the opposite, that culture can be changed. So he didn't need to address the Rams from 15 years ago. It's clear he understood that they had a successful culture for awhile but now they don't. Yes, they had a successful culture specifically in the Super Bowl era. But things started to go downhill before Kelly retired. Basically, when they had Polian they were kicking butt. Then they lost him. And again, yeah, teams do gain and lose successful cultures. It doesn't happen in a month or so, though, it takes time and a tremendous amount of energy directed extremely well (or poorly if the change is for the worse) to heal a culture. If Lombardi wanted to talk about a team that excels without a franchise QB, he could have talked about the Steelers. They didn't win a title till they got Roethlisberger, but under Cowher with QBs like Slash and O'Donnell they were terrors, an extremely successful organization. It happens a lot, but so does the opposite. Wilfork was still excellent for a couple of years in Texas till he got too old. Terry Glenn was excellent elsewhere. Mankins was excellent in TB, though the rest of the team wasn't very good. Chandler Jones had 11 sacks and four forced fumbles last year in Arizona and was generally very good. Jamie Collins was very good for Cleveland, though he was not surrounded by a great roster. In any case, you're right that Belichick finds guys who fits his system very well indeed and those guys sometimes don't do well elsewhere. I may not like their culture but you can't argue that it's not successful.

DE. Then RB and WR. Then S. It's one of the results of having salary cap problems. Lack of depth. Further complicated by scheme switches.

It's worth an awful lot, but it's not worth more than $13.3 B. If it were, someone would be paying that $13.3 B. They're not. Yeah, it would be nice if the world was fair. It's not, and worrying about that is a waste of time. It's just the way it goes in a capitalist society. Is Tom Cruise worth $25 mill a movie? Yeah, to the movie companies desperate for a big opening weekend who know that people come out to see Cruise movies, he is. Does that mean that his work has innate value worth more than 500 times the $25 K a youngish teacher might make? No, of course not, but again, the world isn't fair. If a person is so worried about this, he should probably opt out of the system, stop following football and movies and maybe move to a country that's more socialist in its values. I quoted Musashi today in a different thread but the same quote works well here (and pretty much everywhere, really). "Whatever your determination or will power, it is foolish to try to change the nature of things. Things work the way they do because that is the way of things." Exactly. In America, this is the way of things.

I find it really hard to understand how anyone could call our pass defense "excellent." We were 12th in the league at defensive passer rating, with an 85.9. And in a four-way tie for 22nd in the league in defensive passing efficiency, with a defensive YPA of 7.5. That's not excellent. I think people try to use the fact that they only allowed 3,582 yards total in passing, 6th in the league, as evidence that they were really good. But that is largely a reflection of how infrequently teams passed against us. We had the lowest amount of passes thrown against us, #32 in the league with only 511 attempts. That's why we had a relatively low amount of yards.