Thurman#1

The ol' "Everything good is from Beane and everything bad is from McDermott trick", eh Chief?

Burned out? Nope. Heh heh. Nice!

To repeat, I said top 5, not top 7. And that absolutely is the point. So many on here whine on and on about the criticism and the lack of respect and the hatred and on and on. Most of that is nonsense. He's ranked top 5 everywhere. He gets a ton of respect. And of course he gets criticism. He's an NFL quarterback. It's part of the deal. Particularly for an NFL QB leading the league in INTs. It's part of the Josh Allen package. Of course it's going to be mentioned. But again, top five status from about everyone.

Does he really not get the credit? Or is that just the paranoia of Bills fans? Are there a lot of lists out there of the top five QBs that don't have Allen in there? I googled "Top 10 QB list 2023". I later wanted some more recent ones so I re-adjusted for recency. Out of the first ten I opened how many would you guess had Allen outside of the top five? That would be zero. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2023-nfl-qb-power-rankings-lamar-jackson-aaron-rodgers-both-crack-top-10-in-first-rundown-of-all-32-starters/ https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/2023-top-10-nfl-quarterbacks-ranking-the-best-qbs-after-patrick-mahomes https://www.nfl.com/news/top-10-quarterbacks-entering-the-2023-nfl-season https://www.si.com/nfl/2023/05/30/top-10-quarterbacks-qbs-ranked-right-now#gid=ci02c08dc2e000262e&pid=10 https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/37919975/ranking-nfl-top-10-quarterbacks-2023-execs-coaches-scouts-make-their-picks-best-passers https://www.espn.com/nfl/insider/insider/story/_/id/37919975/ranking-nfl-top-10-quarterbacks-2023-execs-coaches-scouts-make-their-picks-best-passers https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-quarterback-rankings-2023-qbs-best-worst/yxvqewdhatrxu7qwajhb89vp https://www.insider.com/nfl-2023-season-starting-quarterbacks-ranked-complete-list-2023-9 https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2023-nfl-week-12-qb-power-rankings-ravens-lamar-jackson-rises-to-no-1-broncos-russell-wilson-also-jumps/ https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-qb-index-week-10-2023-nfl-season They're right to point out the INTs. It's part of who he is. Pretty much all of them also point out his running, which is also part of who he is. It really would be better if he threw less. At least two games and arguably three, Allen was a large part of why we lost, and I'm sure he'd agree 100% with that. He also won us some games, no question. But inconsistency is held against QBs, and for good reason. Of course, there are always going to be a few folks who over-react. This is the internet, after all. It's part of the deal. But most recognize that he's a great QB. Only the wingnuts don't really. He doesn't get a lot of hate, he just doesn't. But yeah, they do throw his weaknesses in with the rest of his traits.

No. The idea is stupid. Why risk hundreds of billions to win a few tens or hundreds of millions? It simply doesn't make sense. It'd be killing the golden goose. Is it possible one guy somewhere is venal and stupid enough to try? Yeah. Sure. But the whole thing? Absolutely not. It simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Landry. He was in his 12th year coaching Dallas when he won his first SB. And Cowher as you said. Those are two terrific coaches, by the way. Oh, and by the way, "I know Cowher both won and lost with Pittsburg, but [justification, excuse, justification, excuse] only shows how you want this argument to fall. You can always find a justification for excluding a guy if that's your previous prejudice. But doing so only shows what you want rather than having any real logical force. There are two: Landry and Cowher. More, the problem is that the question, when stated that way, automatically acts to exclude guys who proved very very capable of winning Super Bowls. Tom Coughlin is a good example. Eight years of coaching at Jax and not winning one, though he had some great rosters. Without a year off, he went to the Giants and won one in his fourth year. Did he become a different coach? Nah. Things just came together for him. He was good enough to win in Jax but it's hard to get things to come together sometimes. So, how many coaches were fired at some point because the team thought they'd never win a Super Bowl, but that turned out to be wrong? Several. Belichick. George Allen. Vermeil. Pete Carroll. Dungy. Kubiak. Reid. That's a squatload.

Yeah, and the proof that McDermott is the main reason is that ... um ...it's that ... well, many people don't like him.

Yes, true. And also already in the report. No plans now is what the two main sources said, and Graham himself says, "Although additional calamities may befall McDermott over the next month and a half and alter the organization's plans, four sources familiar with Terry Pegula's thinking ..."

"35 consecutive regular season games of losing by one score or less," you say? Your meaning there is really unclear, but whatever you're trying to say there, it doesn't apply to McDermott. McDermott's had a lot of big wins that were far more than one-score games, even just this year. And we've also won a couple of one-score games just this year, the Giants, and the Bucs. It is true, though, that McDermott is a bit below .500 in one-score games. We ought to look around for a guy with a good record in one-score games. Hey, Adam Gase went 27-12 in one-score games. He's obviously a fantastic coach! Let's bring him in! I bet he's available!!!! Are you serious? Why would someone with Pegula's ear publicly tell anyone what he's confidentially saying? He'd get fired. Unless he spoke as a confidential source. That's how journalism works. How much junk The Athletic puts out that turn out wrong the next day? Not much at all. No journalism is perfect, like the rest of human endeavor. But the Athletic is a good outlet. Graham is trustworthy, has a ton of solid sources around the league, and has four sources for this story. This is trustworthy. More, it was predictable, it's how Terry works that if you do a damn good job for a long time he won't be quick to let you go. It's how good ownership should work.

Nonsense. If people were fascinated by whatever they see flashing on TV, beer commercials would be bigger than football. The reason people are interested in INTs is that they are huge in terms of whether a team wins or loses. Turnover ratios are It's "behind the curtain in your posts and the posts of the other folks like you who want to ignore it. TDs per game aren't nearly as big because a rushing TD is as good as a passing TD. A QB can have zero TDs and still have a great game and the offense can still be extremely productive. INTs are turnovers. Sorry, the two are not even close. A high TDs per game is generally good, but a low one doesn't necessarily mean anything bad. INTs can and often do turn games around. That's why people focus on them. As for good in some categories and bad in others? Yeah. That's why a balanced view is best. And yet unless reminded you only talk about the good ones. You make fun of people who try to look at both the bad and the good. You've got just as much tunnel vision as the folks who think only of INTs. One isn't much. If he only had one, that'd be very little. But his figure isn't "one." It's one more than the second-worst guy in the league. That's a lot, which is why nobody else has equalled it. You have to look also at how productive he is, (very productive) but having the most turnovers is a very bad thing.

Ouch! That hurt, Teef. Really isn't. It might. Very possible. And they could make it with a 4-1 record, though it becomes wildly dependent on the results of other teams.

On the contrary. He's done really really well. A few mistakes of course, as everyone does, but overall he's been smart and efficient with a QB on a really high second contract. Way way way too early to say the Bills aren't going anywhere next year. Just about exactly one year too early. At this point next season, we'll know. Not much before. We don't even know whether we make the playoffs this year, much less next. And while nobody can know how deep the reload will cut, we can know with absolute certainty they aren't going to rebuild.

"Bleak" is overstating it. But yeah, we'll be constricted. Those expecting $20M - $25M signings are drinking the Kool-Aid.

When people want to ignore them and pooh-pooh them, yeah, I do. I want people to look at things in a balanced, reasonable way. I also point out that he had a terrific game, in the same post, if I remember correctly. Stop telling people to ignore what's behind the curtain and they'll stop being fascinated by it.

Did that INT give the Eagles the win? It led directly to seven Eagles points. So, kinda. At that point in the game neither team could stop the other and they were going back and forth between Buffalo up by 10 and Buffalo up by 3. Buffalo up by 3 with the ball and the INT happens. Not only does Buffalo lose the possession but the Eagles get the ball on the Bills 24 yard line, put up seven and take the lead for the first time since the 1st quarter. You're kidding yourself if you don't think that was a huge turning point. Not the only turning point, there were a bunch. But that was a huge moment. Instead of going back and forth between Bills by 10 and Bills by 3, now the lead is switching back and forth. That defensive failure you're referring to didn't switch things at all, really. They'd been going back and forth from up 3 to up 10 since it was 17-7. That was more of the same. The Bills got the ball back and had been marching up and down the field for a while. Then Josh throws the INT. It was absolutely a big big turning point. It should be pointed out that even with that included Allen had a terrific game. But without that, they probably win. But you could say the same for several other turning points, Cook's drop of a TD catch, the two failures of FGs ... In the end, you're greatly overstating the case here. He's neither "wrong" nor "deeply dishonest." There is no wrong or right here. The two of you have a reasonable disagreement and both of you are spinning like a centrifuge. Equally, for some folks, INTs are just OK and should be ignored because he's a good player. Nothing but ignoring the INTs and considering them completely acceptable is in any way reasonable.

Not everything, hell, not even this evidence suggests that Dorsey was a major issue for this. It just doesn't. Hi first very significant rise in percentage, a jump of 0.6 percent, happened under Daboll. Between Daboll's third and fourth years, Allen went from 7th best in the league at 1.6% to 18th best. Again, under Daboll, a major drop. If Dorsey were the problem, his first year, when he took over from Daboll would see a major jump. But that's not what happened. He only got 0.2% worse. The difference between Dorsey's first and second years would not be significant if Dorsey were the main part of the problem. But in fact he went up 0.5%. What all this tells us is that the ups and downs do NOT correlate well at all with the difference between Daboll and Dorsey. It tells us that it's likely something else. There's likely some effect from the OC, absolutely. But the biggest changes happened between two years when Daboll was coordinator and then again between two years when Dorsey was. Something else is at play. Perhaps several things. I have a guess, myself. Remember early in his career, when in the offseason Josh would go to work on improving one aspect of his game that needed work? Remember? One year it was deep ball accuracy, which improved greatly the next year. The year before that it was mechanics and footwork and using the turn of his torso to generate force. After that it was touch and accuracy on short passes, which also greatly improved. Remember that? What did he work on the last couple of offseasons? We didn't hear much of anything. In his interview with that Dallas podcast he said this offseason he's just relaxing, getting healthy. Whisky was mentioned. This was the best way for him, he said. The switch in girlfriends was not really mentioned, but dating a movie star isn't concentrating on touch and accuracy on short passes. Josh didn't used to get out-worked. These days, he is. Again, the difference between Daboll's last year and Dorsey's first was statistically pretty much insignificant. 2.3% and 2.5%. If that were where the problem was, that's where we'd see the effects hit. We don't.

More like 2.0%, honestly. 2.5% is still pretty bad these days.

Fair enough that the last two games he's been better. That's a positive trend. It makes me hopeful. But it's really not safe to say that Dorsey is a big reason for that. The uptrend had started the year before Dorsey took over. 2.3%, his figure in Daboll's last year, was Allen's worst under Daboll barring Allen's rookie year. And the difference between Daboll's last year and Dorsey's first was the difference between 2.3% and 2.5%. Not a significant difference. So no, it's not safe to say that. It's very possible that it's a factor, but equally possible the uptick is something else, perhaps a more relaxed way of handling the off-season than he had earlier, for instance. Not saying that's it, but it's one of a number of possibilities among possible major factors. And Dorsey is one of those.

Spoiler alert: YES. 2.5% last year. That's high. Seriously high. 25th best ranking in the NFL in 2022 in terms of INT percentage. Only 34 players qualifed for the list by having 200 or more attempts. 25th out of 34. The guys behind Josh that year? Stafford, Carr, Matt Ryan, Zach Wilson, Mariota, Davis Mills, Wentz, Justin Fields and Dak dead last. Now the guys just ahead of him, from 2.2% and back to Josh? Aaron Rodgers having a down year. Russ Wilson having a catastrophic year. Kenny Pickett, Taylor Heinicke, Andy Dalton, Baker Mayfield and Mac Jones. Again, those are the guys ABOVE Josh. 3.0% this year. That's terrible. No kidding, it's really bad. Seriously high. 29th best ranking in the NFL in 2022 in terms of INT percentage. Only 35 guys have qualified with the 200 attempts threshold this year so far. The guys behind Josh? Aidan O'Connell, Mac Jones, Daniel Jones, Ryan Tannehill, Tyson Bagent and Jimmy Garoppolo. How does that list look? And the ten guys immediately ABOVE Josh this year, in order from best to worst? Bryce Young, Deshaun Watson, Minshew, Josh Dobbs, Stafford, Tagovailoa, Sam Howell, Jordan Love, Justin Fields, Jalen Hurts and Desmond Ridder. There's a QB or two there who are good, but mostly dross. So, yeah, Allen is having too many INTs the last couple of years. He just is. Yeah, he managed to do quite a bit better from 2019 to 2021, at 2.0%, 1.7% and 2.3%. Those much better years keep his career numbers looking reasonable. But right now he's just not avoiding INTs like he should.

The "hindsight is 20/20" comments show you that McDermott is saying, "it's not my fault"? No offense, but that's on you. That just shows your confirmation bias. "Hindsight is 20/20" is simple truth. It means nobody can see the future perfectly. You're assuming that he meant, "and therefore I'm blameless." But you make that assumption only because you don't like the guy. He could just as easily have meant, "so I can learn from the results of my actions there," as what you're saying. McDermott is precisely correct that when a judgment turns out to be wrong, far more people "knew" it was wrong afterwards than said so at the time. In your example, I'm sure you're right that 3/4s of the people in the room in the room at the time suddenly remember later how they really had opposed things even though generally when 3/4s of the people at the time actually speak up and say they're wrong, most decisions - not all, but most - are affected and re-thought. McDermott, by all accounts, listens and considers opinions. He doesn't always change his mind, but he More, the fact that we lost doesn't mean we would've won if the decision had been different. We might easily have lost by more and in less time. I didn't like either of those decisions, myself. But they're very defensible. As is the notion that if Cook makes the catch and the two FGs are made, and Allen doesn't throw that INT (though he had a terrific game overall) there is a wildly different result.

Yeah. The way things are running themselves based on the way Belichick - the GOAT - created his foundation. And nobody's saying that McD doesn't have anything to do with it. He deserves his share of the blame. Oh, wait, no, I forgot, he deserves all of it. It's all his fault. I totally forgot the conventional wisdom. When things go well, it's because we've got Allen. But when they're bad, it's because we've got McDermott. How could I have forgotten?

He was open. The situation was ambiguous. They had time for a route involving cuts on that very play.

Those years he went through those head coaches and GMs for the Sabres ... how many of those switches came when the Sabres had made the playoffs four years in a row and consistently been considered a Cup contender? Yeah, he is willing to make changes. When it makes sense.

Bar's a lot lower than that. He could go, particularly if they fall apart down the stretch. But if they don't, he's likely to be here for at least another year. And while that win was tremendously painful, the Bills looked like an excellent team. What words did you hear that you are twisting enough that they somehow come to mean, "It's not my fault," to you?

The Bills could draft anywhere between 32 and probably #8. Way too early to even reasonably guess. Getting to cap won't be particularly difficult. But yeah, wildly expensive FAs aren't going to be on the menu this year. Nah. They really don't. I mean, it's theoretically possible, but not realistically. And we certainly have some flexibility, but very far from a ton. Spotrac has us 30th out of the 32 teams in cap space next year, $42M over the cap. OvertheCap has us 31st out of 32, with $29M over. Either way, not good. In 2025, OvertheCap and Spotrac both have us 29th.