Thurman#1

I have to disagree. It's not always Josh. It was Tyrod also. Any Bills QB for more than a few weeks really. But you're dead right. Completion percentage, particularly through two weeks, means very little As a quick example, anyone remember who was tops in completion percentage after two weeks in 2019, with 45 out of 58 completions for a 77.6 percent completion percentage, higher than Josh's this year? That would be Gardner Minshew. Who was riding high in 2015 after two weeks with a completion percentage of 37 out of 49, 75.5? That would be Tyrod. 70% after his first three games in 2007 and then 71% after two games in 2008? Trent Edwards. Too small a sample and it's simply not a close enough connection to draw much from. There certainly is some relation. But too many other factors involved in accuracy make this a stat you can't derive accuracy from.

It's an incorrect argument. I'm not overstating it. Incorrect is incorrect. One of my favorite examples of this is Archie Manning. He was known for being quite accurate. His completion percentage numbers were not especially good and showed a lot of variance as well. This is because there are a ton of factors that go into completion percentage far beyond accuracy.

Whether someone is making an argument somewhere or not has nothing to do with whether it's a horrible argument. This ... is a horrible argument. It will never not be a horrible argument.

No. It really isn't. The problem with accuracy is that there really is not one stat or any combination of stats that equates to it with much consistency. But I mean, kid yourself if you must. You've been pretty excellent at that in the past. Again, you spent literally hundreds of thousands of words on the forums telling us that these same stats proved that Tyrod Taylor was an excellent quarterback. Hundreds of thousands of words. The stats didn't bear out what you said then. And they don't bear out what you're trying to say now. But again, kid yourself if you must. You have a long and extensive history of vast misunderstanding as to what these stats show about accuracy.

You're kidding yourself here. Does bad protection hurt and good protection help? Sure. But he had a great pocket and plenty of time left on two of the three INTs against the Jets. And decent time in the pocket on the third. He makes bad decisions sometimes. He plays hero ball and that causes a lot of his problems. Still a terrific QB, though, but he could improve.

YAC is also not well-targeted at accuracy. It can mean the passes were accurate. Or that the receiver was really open. Or that the receiver broke a tackle. Or that a pick play knocked the defender off. Or that a screen was well-blocked .... We know about Allen's accuracy, from his last five years. He's often unbelievably accurate, throwing into tiny windows. But then he'll overthrow by a lot or bounce the ball in. He's accurate but not consistent. We already know this. Is it possible he's become more accurate or more consistent this year? Yeah. Unlikely, and not enough sample size, but we may find that to be true as the year goes on. Or not. Can't really say yet.

Poor thinking is understandable? I guess we'll have to disagree on that.

Your tactic here is called "moving the goalposts." And moving the goalposts is a sign of desperation in a losing argument. The question was about Super Bowl winning teams. Not teams that made money with merch sales or ticket sales or "won a bunch of games." SUPER ... BOWL ... WINNING ... TEAMS. Plenty of teams pay RBs big money. But how many of them win Super Bowls while they are doing it? It's been a while. A serious while. Paying huge money to an RB is a misappropriation of money.

Sure, maybe he would average over 6 yards. Or maybe he would average under 3 yards. "Maybe" anything can happen. The best guess is to take his career average, 5.1, and then maybe be very positive and add on a couple of tenths just for the heck of it, hence 5.3. It's being kind. The Colts have a sensational OL in terms of run blocking. Yeah, um, the first sentence there is an excellent argument ... having nothing to do with anything that I said. I didn't say Taylor wasn't better. I didn't compare him to anyone. The second sentence is a poor argument, and equally irrelevant as the first sentence. @Who scares you" you ask? And that question dictates who you need to get? Sorry, man, that's not an argument that a GM would make. That's one facet of the decision. There are many many more, which is the point. If you could just magically kidnap Taylor and put him on the team with no cap consequences, no acquisition cost, no destroying the value of the three productive, talented RBs already on the roster, then sure, go do it. But what you have there is a pipe dream. That's a fan's question, not a GM's. In fantasy, yeah, sure, get Taylor. Beane doesn't deal in fantasy, nor should he. Getting him would be a misappropriation of resources. It would hurt the team in exchange for around a couple of hundred extra yards. And in the end, the answer to your question about "Who scares you" is this ... Josh Allen scares people. Way way way more than Jonathan Taylor does. Which is why we're not going to spend far too many resources on Taylor when we don't run all that much anyway, nor should we. And if you have already decided on Cook when you've only seen him as a rookie, that speaks a lot to your decision-making process. Knee-jerk decisions are more often wrong than right. Also, I notice you haven't answered the question. For the obvious reason. But again, where is the last highly paid RB who won a Super Bowl?

Run their course? Probably not. I never was able to watch Bayless or Stephen A Smith. It's too obviously argument for the sake of argument. I can watch intelligent sports conversation. There isn't much around. I mean, have reality shows run their course? They're absolutely awful and yet people still watch. People watch Adam Sandler movies. I don't understand why, but they do. Yeah, there are a few good ones around, but not many. I used to love to listen to Tony Kornheiser and whoever he was talking to. He was knowledgeable but also hilarious.

Come on, man, you're doing the same thing you did in the last post, completely making up the motives of the people you disagree with. Which is full of crap. Nobody is "upset at someone creating a thread to celebrate a good performance." There were plenty of threads like that that did not get any kickback. People are attacking poor thinking here. Attacking poor thinking only makes sense. Tyrod had some good performances too. Nobody denies that. But the extreme overestimation of his talents, and the distortion of the meaning of statistics are things that absolutely should be pointed out as poor logic, not able to be legitimately backed up. Allen is accurate. He's not as consistently accurate as we'd all like. He's one of the best QBs in the league playing overall at an elite level. Absolutely none of which forgives the poor logical connection of equating completion percentage and accuracy.

Not completely wrong, it was head to head. That's bad. Should be punished. But he seems to be saying that running across the field to hit someone outside your zone is a bad and purposeless thing. It's not at all. Correct, though, that the head-to-head contact was wrong.

Please. Nobody has a problem with a guy liking his team's QB. Wildly overestimating every regular QB your team has, though, is embarrassing, and good evidence of poor thinking. Praise God, the Bills have finally got a QB who is pretty damn difficult to overestimate. But Trans did it with every regular Bills QB. Every one. It's good evidence of severe confirmation bias. Mind you, everyone has confirmation bias to some degree. I spend a lot of time examining my thoughts to try to eliminate it. I'm sure I don't succeed anywhere near completely. But some people don't fight and instead joyfully ride the wave.

Hey, how's Tyrod? Is he still "near-elite" as you so famously said? Oh, and aren't you the guy who said before the draft that Josh Allen had no chance whatsoever to be successful? You've showed wildly powerful bias again and again, let's be honest here. It's your M.O. You have literally spent hundreds of thousands of words, multiple novels worth, on this forum and the other about how Tyrod's high completion percentage showed that he was accurate ... and one of the better QBs in the league. Conflating completion percentage and accuracy was dumb then, it's dumb now, and it will always be dumb.

Yes, he's accurate, although not as consistently so as someone like, say, Brees. But no, completion percentage does not equal accuracy. Not necessarily even very close. Just as an example, in 2008, Trent Edwards was 6th in completion percentage, and less than 2% out of 1st place. It wasn't because he was one of the most accurate throwers in the league. The two have a very basic confluence but there is much more to accuracy.

IMO it's too early to say that about McCorkle. I'm hoping, but he still has a chance to be genuinely good, I think. They tried to get rid of Bart Starr everywhere he was. He was an amazing QB, a Hall of Famer. Kurt Warner. Unitas had to go play semi-pro. Theismann. Steve Young. The list goes on. Plenty of QBs who became amazing had teams attempting to upgrade from them. That's a fact. Frankly, you're nuts that he'd be in the XFL. You're right that he wouldn't look as good as he does now, but the XFL? Nobody in this thread is trying to say he's amazing. They've quoted a survey of NFL players that had him as amazing, but that's not what folks in this thread have said. Good, yes, and I think they all think he's a ton better than Fields right now. And there are very good reasons they're saying that.

McMahon wasn't all that good. But also keep mind he never played more than 14 games. And that was only one year. Other than that his high was 13 games in one year. He hasn't answered yet, but IMO those are two great questions and the answer to both is no.

Not at all convinced that the difference between Fields and Hurts is all circumstances. Doesn't look that way to me. But yeah, I'm convinced Fields still has a chance. He'll need to improve a lot, but some guys do.

It could easily end well. But will it?

You're a walking example of confirmation bias. Those reports weren't "this guy isn't that bad I swear" reports. Those were the sensible replies to those reports, which were actually, "See, I felt he made a bad play proving he sucks" reports. You were very involved if I remember correctly. Haven't a clue how he played with the Bears. Did you watch the whole game? Oh, you didn't? Yup, more of the same. You saw something that confirmed your previous bias (of course, because that's what happens, it's what confirmation bias is), and so youI'll be sure post even though not fully informed, because it makes you feel good. Kinda sad to still be trying to tickle your same little spot over and over, even though he's not even on the team anymore.

Taylor is great. He'd make the team a bit better. Not nearly enough better to make up for what we'd have to give up to get him. Assume he averages 5.3 YPC, two-tenths of a yard better than his career average. That's less than a yard a carry better than we're getting from our RBs now and last year. Say he gets 250 carries. That would be a bit over 200 extra yards over the course of the year. Not even close to worth what we'd have to give up. As Warrior9 pointed out in the post just above this one, how many great, highly-paid bell-cow RBs have SB rings? It's been . It's a misallocation of resources. If we were going to bring in a really good player by trading away major draft resources and spending salary cap money we can't afford and stay in good cap shape ... for God's sake, make it an RT. Or another excellent young pass rusher.

Fine. What's the ratio? 30/20/40? With the remaining 10 for number of delay of game penalties? Remind me, where did the Bills rank last year in rhythm in the NFL? Were they 22nd? 17th? You're doing an excellent job proving my point. It doesn't exist except as a vague generalization, basically meaning consistently successful.

Sorry, remind me, did he say they played lousy in "every big game except play off games with Baltimore and NE, and bumrush games"? Or did he say in "every game"? That's right, he said it was in "every game." Nonsense. And the fact is the D was a huge factor in that Colts win in the playoffs. Huge. The Colts got the ball on their final drive with 2:30 left, down by a field goal. Plenty of time and a great chance. And couldn't move the ball against our defense, ended up throwing a hail mary from the 47. Forced them into a 13 play slow, unproductive drive, it was absolutely excellent play. And now you are doing the same thing, throwing out hogwash as if it's true. The Bills aren't "completely unable to stop the run, year after year." That's utter crap. All you have to do is look at how Jacobs did yesterday to know that's simply not true, nine carries for -2 yards. The Raiders went 15 carries for 55 yards, 3.7 YPC. But you don't have to stop there. The YPA stats show year after year we're good against the run. 13th best last year, 11th best the year before. Bad in 2020, 6th worst, 13th best in 2019. We're actually generally above average at run D. Nah, he's a great coach, genuinely great. Not elite. He's still got things to prove, but he's absolutely top 5 - 7 or so.

Which one? Release time? Drive time? Play clock management? Exactly. You don't know. Nobody knows. It's subjective. It's one of the things people say when teams are consistently moving. The game has rhythm because of the play clock. For teams that are succeeding or failing. It's one of those things that feel right and sound right but don't really mean anything. Yeah. Thing is people hated Daboll's play-calling too. He was loved widely around the league and there was a large group here attacking him every time something went wrong. Nobody like to attack the QB or the players. The OC is traditionally the scapegoat. It's how it all works. There is such a thing as bad play-calling. Can't remember the guy but one of our OCs around 10 years ago was found to be consistently going run-run-pass like 80% of the time. That's moronic. But beyond absolute predictability, good plays can be botched by bad execution and bad plays can be saved by bad execution and it's execution that's more generally to blame for bad performance. Oh, and beating bad teams happens often. Beating them by 28 points is pretty rare. Holding even bad teams to 10 points is terrific play. Scoring 38 yourself? Not common. It was a great game by the Bills. The last one was pretty awful. We shouldn't forget how awful Allen in particular played in that game. But this game was terrific.

Sorry, man, just flat-out untrue. "every" big game? Just a dumb lie. Season games aganst KC are huge games. So were all the playoff games they've won last few years. So that's just dumb, said for effect. Yes, they haven't won a Super Bowl. That puts them, each year, in the same boat with 31 other teams. That's because rhythm is subjective. People generally start talking about rhythm when a team is successful. It doesn't really mean anything much more than successful with consistency.