Thurman#1

I know, our problems are just huge. We're one of the best offenses in the league and have been for years. Clearly we need to make huge changes. And clearly it's all on Gabe. Except it's not. Gabe had more yards for the Bills than anyone but Diggs. And you blame Gabe? Lots of TDs compared to other receivers. And you blame him? Doesn't make sense. The problem is we're not perfect, but we're really good. Not as good this year as we were last year, at least so far, but blaming the guy who is having a better year this year makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You're right, Gabe isn't bad. He's also not a #1. But for a #2, he's solid.

I know, totally. And it's only Gabe facing the lesser coverage players, all the other #2s in the league always face the #1 CB that the other team ... Oh, wait, they actually don't. He runs a lot of routes well, but not all of them, like, you know the other #2s. And yeah, he doesn't face the best CB. Neither do the other #2s most of the time.

Again, this simply doesn't correspond with reality. If his big plays were "occasional," he wouldn't get so many TDs and his yards per target wouldn't be so high. Dumb also to say he's not a chain mover. Over 70% of his catches were 1st downs. Yes, if you compare him with Diggs, he comes off more poorly. Are you seeing people arguing Davis is better than Diggs? If you are, you'd really have a point here. But nobody makes that argument. Diggs is a clear #1. Compare any #2 in the league with Diggs and they won't measure up. Doesn't mean they aren't solid #2s. The reason #2s are #2s is that they can't do absolutely everything at a high level the way that someone like Diggs can. If they could, they'd be #1s. Gabe is definitely not a #1. He's a #2.

Sorry, man, that's nonsense. First, sometimes he does get open and convert in that kind of a situation. Also nonsense that only one specific kind of receiver is eligible to be a #2. Davis is very productive. That's what makes him a #2. It's absolute and complete nonsense that Davis is the reason we're so high variance. We have a lot of reasons for that. Gabe certainly bears some responsibility for it. So does Josh. So does everyone, really. Again, the idea that someone isn't a #2 without running a full route tree is nonsense. Plenty of guys in the top 50 have limitations and high variance. And 3rd and medium to long is a reason why EVERY TEAM is up and down. It's a situation where every team has a harder time. That's the nature of football and the nature of probability. Just some quick examples from looking at highlights from last year: His TD to open the scoring against the Rams last year at 10:04 in the first came on third and one On 3rd and 2 against the Rams at 11:44 in the 2nd he converted the 1st with a nice little eight yard catch. On 3rd and 7, also against the Rams, with 14:47 left in the 4th quarter he put up an extremely long play, well over 40 yards. His 98 yarder last year against the Steelers came on 3rd and 10. On 3rd and 13 against the Chiefs with 1:13 left in the 2nd, he pulled down a 16 yarder. Against Detroit at 12:54 in the 3rd, Gabe converted a 3rd and 13 And in the same game, with 12:15 to go in the 4th he converted a 3rd and 2 with a 5 yard catch. Against the Pats he converted a 3rd and goal a the Pats 8 with a TD at 5:34 in the 2nd, a highlight of the whole season. He converted a 3rd and 17 against Miami at 13:08 in the 2nd. Against the Pats in Buffalo, at 0:35 of the 1st quarter he converted a 3rd and 7 with a catch of roughly 16 yards. Against Miami in Buffalo with 0:18 in the 2nd, he converted a 3rd and 6 with an 18 yarder.

If catches were the only qualification, that would be important. Production is what makes you good. Davis produces, and well within the level of the top 50 guys. TDs and yards produced are the type of things you look at. James Lofton didn't have a ton of catches either. But he got a lot of big plays and production. Other guys are more possession guys. It's still about production. They can still be terrific receivers depending how good they are and how important to their team. Production. Davis is absolutely a #2. It's not even a question. He's in a 5-way tie for 4th in TDs. That will change once today's games are counted, but he'll be easily within the range you'd expect of a #2. He's 27th in yards. That also will change with the new numbers, but again, very easily within the expectations for a #2. This ain't rocket science.

It's not about position or specific skill sets. Those are about slots and Ys and Xs and deep threats and so on. There is no specific definition of skills required by a #2. a guy who gets better can become a #1 or a #2 without changing position or skill set. Equally a guy who regresses can be said to no longer be a #1 or a #2, also without changing skill sets. A #3 isn't among the top 50 or so receivers in the game. #3s and #2s are just general terms referring to how good a receiver is. Since most folks use the term #1 not to refer to among the top 32 or so guys in the league but instead to refer to "true #1" types who are generally considered to be among the best fifteen or so in the league, #2s are about the next 30 - 40 best. #3s are the next 30 - 40 or so after that. And Davis absolutely is a #2. Not among the best of them, although he's trending up and may get there. But he's a solid #2.

Athleticism has nothing to do with response to jet lag. The idea is ridiculous.

Please. Fan expectations have very very little effect on this team or any team.

With hindsight, I think you're right. But Bass is so damn good, so consistently, that I had no problem at the time. So I can't blame them.

My guess is we'll still be a top ten defense with McDermott in charge, because of his schemes and his ability to coach up defensive backfields. But I'm thinking it will take a week or three to get to that level.

This isn't on Bill Belichick the coach, IMO. Or at least not primarily. It's on Bill Belichick the GM. He used to be a really really good GM. He's just not anymore. At his age he doesn't have the juice to do both. That roster mostly just sucks.

What would make anyone think Frank Clark is elite this year? Or even better than Kingsley Jonathan? He's been healthy all year, unless I've missed something (which is definitely possible, please tell me if I missed some news about the guy). He's played like 30 snaps all year and doesn't have a sack. a QB hit or a pressure. Why didn't Denver play him if he was still looking good? In the day, he was a hell of a player. Is he now?

IMO, not obvious at all. Maybe they wanted to re-work the position. Or maybe they didn't think Lotulelei was playing well anymore but would have happily kept Phillips up to a certain price and Phillips got more on the open market. But with his bonus paid by another team he's now below that price. IMO they're not going to get him back but they like him. Hard to say for sure, though.

It's what we brought in Poona for. Most were happy here to get him. He's played very well for a long time. We'll see how he does.

According to this, all three types can have surgical solutions. https://www.howardluksmd.com/torn-pectoral-tendon-treatment/

It's absolutely not all about offense. It never is. Defense has its part to play. Philly, for one, has been neld to 23 points and 25 twice. KC has been held to 17 And to 23. SF hasn't been held yet, but they will be, especially when they go up against some decent defenses. That's the way it works. Look at last year. Look at every team every year, really. Even the best offenses will have some bad offensive games. But yeah, we'll find out about Poona and Williams. Damn shame about those injuries, though. Yeah, we'll know when they announce it. That's an absolutely crucial cog, though. He's been terrific.

Screens aren't easy to run with Josh Allen. They work well when DLs pin their ears back and rush like crazy. They don't do that with Josh because if they do he'll run right past them. Screens also don't work nearly as well against zone coverage as they do against man-to-man. And very few teams run a lot of man against us, partly to stop Josh from running and partly because man is less confusing to the QB and teams want to slow Josh's processing as much as they possibly can. The Bills have thrown a bunch to TEs. We're 9th in the league in passes to TEs, with 19 to each guy. Our primary receiving TE is a rookie and that is going to delay things. There's a good chance that as he figures things out, our TE usage will go up quite a bit.

Oh, nonsense. Dennison was the guy who was going run-run-pass over and over and over, to the point where teams knew what we were doing to a near-certainty. Dorsey is far far better, right now. This team is scoring at a very high pace. And while Dorsey certainly deserves his share of the blame, this loss was mostly about poor execution.

Allen played decently, but not as well as he has been, IMO. That first drive-ending drop is a good example. Cook got his hands on it, but for a very short pass, it was drilled and enough off-target to make it a hard catch to make. There were a few others like that. He really got it together late, but it was just a bit too late. Lots of blame to go around, especially on the offense. The whole group just looked jet lagged through most of the game. I'd throw some of the blame on whoever decided to wait till so late in the week to travel. That was hard to watch.

So, a guy with just about the poorest judgment on these boards is unsatisfied with our draft. And can give no reason, just a general feeling of dissatisfaction? Wow! This is huge ... at least in one person's mind.

Is there word on DaQuan after "doesn't look good"?

Stats for TEs in their First Five Games Pat Friermuth 100 yards, 1 TD Kelce missed his entire first year Dallas Goddert 106 yards, 1 TD Hockenson 187 yards, 2 TDs, significantly better, and an 8th overall pick. Kyle Pitts 308 yards, 1 TD, significantly better, and a 4th overall pick Dalton Schultz zip Darren Waller 18 yards, 0 TDs Mark Andrews 135 yards, 1 TD George Kittle 166 yards, 1 TD Two guys have signficantly more than Kincaid in their first five games. And they were a 4th overall pick and an 8th overall pick. Kittle is on the edge of significance, so let's give him credit also. The rest are in Kincaid's range or below. You can argue that Kincaid doesn't have a TD and several of these guys do. Fair enough. And yet, Diggs admitted he stole that in week 4 from Kincaid. Kincaid was wide open in the end zone two steps to the right. He would likely have had that TD if Diggs hadn't changed his route and run to the daylight Kincaid was in. Point - AGAIN - being that it's too early to understand anything, regardless of the fact that he hasn't stood out.

I rule? I mean, thanks, but not really. Compared to you, of course, yeah, I make a ton more sense, but so do most on here. Overall, I'm just a person who uses common sense as most on here do. Shouldn't be anything special about that. And if you want to prove that wrong, go back and find all the threads where I started threads asking dumb questions like yours about guys who have been in the league for five weeks. I don't do that. Because it's dumb. I also made my argument about a second-year guy who has proved something by playing very well for a short period of time. He hasn't proven enough, but something. Not you, though. You popped off about a rookie, a five-game rookie. Dumb. Bernard is a second-year man who looked like a failure as a rookie, by the way. Can you think of anyone else who might be like that? I do sometimes enter dumb threads and point out how stupid it is to be even thinking this so early. That's what you see. And if you can find threads I started asking dumb questions like this so early - conditionals or not - you will indeed have won an argument. Should I wait?

Yup. You just didn't feel the need to respond with anything responsive or relevant. Yeah, we get it. It's a loser's argument. We see it here all the time. Sad you have to keep going back to Edmunds in a Kincaid thread as if you're making a point. It's what people without a decent argument do, distract as much as you can and hope people won't notice.

Again, dumb. Saying someone "looks like" he will be a good one after a small sample is reasonable. I didn't say he is going to be great or even good. I waffled, very deliberately, because we can't be sure yet. And yes, really good production for a short time does say more than really bad production for the same short time. Good production at least shows you have the capability of performing really well. It doesn't mean you will continue to do so, but since you've already shown you can do it, your chances of continuing to do so are better. Short-term bad production might mean you're just not good enough. Or that they don't trust you enough yet. Or that you're not quite ready yet, and might take another week or two or another year or two. Or that you need another off season in a real strength program. Or that they don't want to put some of his abilities on film yet because they want to use him as a surprise in crucial games later in the season. There's a million possibilities. We don't yet know which one is correct. With Bernard we at least know he's capable of being really good for a short period of time. "If he stays healthy Bernard looks like he will be a really good one." Two conditionals in a short sentence. And for a reason.