Thurman#1

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.

It does not mean anything. You're right, I can dismiss it. Anyone with triple digit functioning brain cells should. He has been here five games. That's all that needs to be said. The fact that you don't understand this is really sad. Again, he has out-produced Tony Gonzalez in Tony's first five games. That's because the first five games, if not very good, mean absolutely nothing. With this record of production, he could have a terrible career, a Hall of Fame career, or absolutely anything in between. And yeah, Moss does look good. He was never going to be used as a bell cow, the way that he apparently needs to be used. Remind me, did Moss look great when Daboll was here? Blaming Dorsey for something that as yet means absolutely nothing is just dumb.

Yup. typical strategy for a sad guy with a pathetic losing argument. Change the subject without admitting what happened. As for Edmunds, I was. Everyone bright should have been. He was a very good player who priced himself out of this team. But I didn't declare this year a disaster now that he was gone, either. I said it should be interesting to see how they replace him. I sure did NOT think they'd replace him so beautifully so very quickly. If he stays healthy Bernard looks like he will be a really good one.

McDermott isn't winning only because of Allen. Not even close. Allen wasn't Allen his first year when they made the playoffs. They won more games than the roster McDermott is a terrific coach, and the idea that they will have to rebuild to replace the aging defensive backfield is utterly ridiculous. That will be a reload, not a rebuild. Would he be winning this many games without Allen? Hell, no, but no teams are consistently excellent without a really good QB. That's just the way it goes. Look at the Ravens. The year before they won the SB with Dilfer they were 8-8. Two years later, 7-9. Allen is the crucial piece, but this is a great roster playing really well very consistently. McDermott is a very very good coach.

No, and the idea's dumb. And they had very few injuries in their first 2 - 3 years and a bunch the last two years. Which makes it look like ordinary statistical variation.

Kinda sad that you don't even understand how pathetic this thread is. The questions was dumb, as are all questions whose answer is, "Um, obviously not. Duh." And that is indeed the answer to this stupid question. That question was about as thoughtful and on point as a parent looking at his 18 month old spitting out his first word and asking, "Any reason to think this kid isn't headed for a future as a ditch digger so far?" Pure dumbage. Too early to have any idea, and it's sad that you don't get that. Again, he's out-produced Tony Gonzalez's first five games. And I didn't come up with "Maybe he'll be better in the future." What I came up with was closer to "Asking this early shows far more in a sad way about the guy who asked the question than it does about Kincaid." Oh, and your title was even more pathetic than your post.

Yes, there absolutely is. We're five games in. We still don't have any idea what he is. This is a dumb thread. If it had been a couple of years it would have made some sense. Frickin' Tony Gonzalez put up fewer yards in his first five games than Kincaid has, and equalled Kincaid's zero TDs. Am I saying Kincaid is Gonzalez? No, though some feeb would probably accuse me of doing so if I hadn't put this sentence in. I'm saying the first five weeks mean squat.

See, that housing problem, you missed out on the easy part. Just become a Baltimore Raven for a few years and earn enough to put you in beds and blankets for decades. Congrats to Urschel, that's great news. He is one of the more fascinating football players ever.

With just a super-quick look, I see he's 14th in Air Yards this year, but was 1st last year. I'd rather see Air Yards per Attempt or Air Yards per Completion, but can't put in any more time on this. https://www.ftnfantasy.com/air-yards?fppg=PPR&years=2022

The clip is from 2020, back before he started dating movie stars and collecting whiskies.

They laughed.

All true and reasonable. And a lot of what you are buying when you pay an elite QB is the chance to be wildly successful without spending tons and tons on WRs. Look at Brady. Mahomes. Rodgers. There are certainly some exceptions, but when you are paying a top 6 or 7 QB, you have a lot less money to work with, and so you tend to expect your QB to be really really effective with less.

Nice idea. You'd be helping to make yourself rich. You'd be contributing a lot of money to yourself.

Inconsistency is how most receivers outside the top ten or so live. Smith-Schuster last year with Mahomes throwing to him: 79, 10, 89, 46, 33, 113, 124, 88, 33, 38, 35, 74, 88, 27, 21, 35 Christian Kirk last year: 117, 78, 72, 60, 11, 24, 96, 40, 76, 105, 46, 104, 45, 92, 22, 21, 99 DK Metcalf last year: 36, 35, 64, 149, 88, 34, 12, 55, 37, 71, 90, 127, 71, 55, 81, 3, 40 Amari Cooper last year: 17, 101, 101, 9, 76, 44, 74, 131, 94, 40, 42, 58, 72, 105, 51 Tee Higgins last year: 27, 71, 93, 124, 47, 93, 49, 60, 148, 114, 35, 33, 128, 7 Garrett Wilson last year: 52, 102, 60, 41, 27, 8, 24, 115, 92, 12, 95, 162, 78, 98, 30, 18, 89 Mike Williams 10, 113, 15, 120, 134, 17, 86, 15, 116, 67, 76, 94, 32 Courtland Sutton 72, 122, 97, 52, 74, 14, 23, 13, 66, 80, 75, 0, 64, 44, 33 This is simply how things go for WRs, most of them. Went out of my way to pick guys who had good years, better than Gabe.

No, they're not. He had the same kinds of numbers last year when we didn't have two TEs. And yeah, Diggs is often doubled, though not always. But it's not like he's the only guy in the league this happens to. Plus, we're generally getting two deep safety coverages against us. When Gabe goes deep, and he often does, he generally gets the safety drifting over the top as well. Fair enough Ds are more worried about Diggs than Davis, certainly. But that doesn't mean he's an afterthought.

Again, this is simply a dumb argument. His stats show extremely clearly that he's a #2. No, not a great #2, but it isn't even a question that he's a #2. #3 WRs don't end up in the top 20 in TDs and the top 40 in yards, they just don't. And Gabe was that high last year and is higher so far this year.

Yes, but a TD pass can be worth a ton less in terms of EPA.. Most TDs are from the red zone. And red zone TDs aren't worth all that much in terms of EPA. Not to mention that a one yard TD pass is worth zero more than a one yard TD run. TD passes are not as helpful to your team as INTs are harmful. Total passer rating (team passer rating minus your team's defensive passer rating) correlates very well with team success.

A TD is always worth six points. But the EPA of an interception depends on where on the field it happens. More, If your TD is taken away from you, by a penalty or a drop, you don't lose six points of EPA. Unless it was 4th down, you've got another chance at a slightly lower EPA. You might easily run the next down and score the six points on the ground. He's absolutely right that throwing an INT is worse for your team than throwing a TD is good. If you had run instead of throwing you might also have scored a TD.

It's flawed. Still a useful stat, though. More useful than most.

IMO you're mixing up cause and effect here. It wasn't that the reason the Bills were terrible and lost to the Jags was that they only ran 9 times and threw it 47 times. The reason the Bills lost to the Jags was that they couldn't run (22 yards on nine RB carries) and couldn't pass well (Allen's passer rating was 62.7). They sucked at both that game. They were terrible. That's why they lost. We only had 10 RB carries last year in the game we beat the Steelers 38 - 3. But in that game Allen played well, unlike his awful Jags game. Yeah, some people complain about strange things. I don't see how people talking Bills offense can complain about anything about yesterday's game. The offense was nearly as good as the defense. And that's extremely good. But again, it's been proven over and over again that you do NOT have to run a lot, or even run successfully, for play action to work. People (some of them, anyway) maybe think Dorsey should stop running, you say. Not me, but some. But does that really mean that we think he will stop running play action when it's so successful?

We need Dorsey to keep that going? What would make you think he's going to stop?

I miss "Quarter One" fractions. This is 4/17ths of the season, unfortunately. It's a small thing they took away from us with the 17th game. I don't see the "pushed around" thing as a McDermott product. They've never let people push them around, but since his Star's first two years they didn't have a 1-tech who was imposing his will in the middle the way that DaQuan is now. And while Star was very good those first two years, DaQuan is just better. He's a major part of their resurgence, and the D last year also showed this. Settle seems to be playing better also this year. The DL with DaQuan and Von last year looked terrific, but losing Von really hurt. Floyd seems to be taking up just about all of that slack. Loved McDermott's scheme agains the Fins. Great stuff. This team is extremely promising. Only sad to see Tre go down.

Good last year. Very good so far this year. Probably not. It was McDermott. But also Dorsey. No one else has scored more than 34 on them this year. And Beane. And Josh Allen. It was actually everyone.

You're certainly right about the Raiders being destroyed by massive dead cap if they did this, another reason it won't happen. I'm talking about the Bills not being able to keep him for the length of this contract. It's simply and completely prohibitive. You say they could give him a new deal, but that simply isn't realistic. He's due $35M each of those last two years. Not do-able when you count in the cap problems that would result. Davante has never struck me as a guy who'd be cool with giving his team a discount. Why would Gabe on an expiring contract have any value to a team that's not in contention, you ask? Because you get to give him a contract and maybe sign him for a new contract if you like him, that's why. In any case, I didn't suggest the deal. I just agreed that it would be a good one for the Bills IF we could completely overlook cap implications. But yes,cap implications on both sides will make this deal, and picking up Adams untenable. I'm not as down on Mac as many here. I hope he ends up sucking, as I hate the Pats that much.