Thurman#1

It's just your wording I have issue with. They're not "creating cap space." You can say, I guess, "creating cap space in the 2023 cap" or whatever year it's referring to. But cap space is not just alchemically being created. They're just moving cap space from one year to another. You can't really create cap space, except by cutting or trading away guys. Sorry. My detail-obsessed brain at work. I'm sure you already totally understand this, but when people say "He created cap space," others read it and think there really is a way to just mystically create space, like NFL cap guys are wizards or Maester Qyburn or something. Jaime: You're no maester. Where's your chain? Qyburn: The Citadel stripped me of it. They found some of my ... experiments ... too bold. Luckily, I found work with the Belichick family. (I added that last sentence.)

From the story: "Tafur didn't specify that the spat between Waller and McDaniels was the primary reason for the trade, but he noted that the timing was 'interesting.'"

Ah, found it. "CONVERTING THE GRADES "The plus-minus grades are then converted to a 0-100 scale at the game and season level. This makes it easier to compare players across positions relative to their peers, though it doesn’t account for positional value, i.e. which positions are most valuable when trying to predict wins. " It was extremely obvious it was two different scales. Now we know what the scales are. The raw scale has zero as average performance, negatives as bad and positives as good. The converted scale goes from 0 - 100. So when they say that Rodgers has a -0.5 on the raw scale and Fitz had a 21.4, all-time low on the 0 - 100 scale, arguing that the 21.4 Fitz got was ranking him higher than the -0.5 Rodgers got on the other scale is simply not understanding the numbers.

You're right. This is all too complicated. No wonder teams don't study each other's film. It's just too compliated to know what happened. Oh, wait. In fact, it's mostly pretty clear, which is why teams study other teams despite not knowing their calls with exact certainty. PFF puts it best: "YOU DON’T KNOW THE PLAY CALL? "We are certainly not in the huddle, but we are grading what a player attempts to do on a given play. While football is extremely nuanced regarding the preparation and adjustments that go into each play call, once the ball is snapped, most players are clear in what they’re trying to accomplish on each play, and we evaluate accordingly. Of course, there are always some gray areas in football. Plays in which there is a clear question mark regarding assignment, we can defer to a “0” grade and not guess as to which player is right or wrong. These plays are few and far between and since we are grading every snap, missing out on a handful throughout the year should not affect player evaluations. Examples of potential gray areas include coverage busts, quarterback/wide receiver miscommunications and missed blocking assignments." Yeah, you can't fully understand every play. No, that doesn't prevent you from doing a very good job of player evaluation if you look at it carefully, thoughtfully, and are willing to admit the plays where you can't be sure."

"Lots of former players or coaches work at PFF," you say. Thing is, that is what is called a straw man. You said, As I'm sure you know, I didn't ask whether former players work there. I only said this, "where did you read that the analysts at PFF have been in the NFL or college football?" Here's the answer from PFF: "We have analysts from all walks of life, including former players, coaches and scouts. We don’t care if you played." So, you were wrong. And thus went right to the straw man. Do you have any evidence that the people you listed above there are verifying player grades? No, didn't think so. Not that I'm saying PFF is bad. They're not. Neither is Buscaglia.

I'm sorry. Guess that I slightly misquoted you. If you only "said that they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz," then you are clearly wrong, which is fair enough. But unwilling to admit it, which is really pretty sad. You can't say someone "rated someone higher" when two different scales are very clearly being used. The idea is pathetic. It's like saying this scientist rated the temperature as higher than the other one because he's using Fahrenheit and the number is higher than the other scientist's number who is using Celsius. Yeah, one number is higher. No, that doesn't mean the temperature is being rated as higher or lower by either scientist. Whatever scale they're using to measure the Fitz game, they make it wildly clear that it's the worst grade they've ever graded. "That earned him a PFF grade of 21.4, a catastrophic score that isn’t just the worst single-game grade of the season, but is the worst single-game grade we have ever seen from a QB over the past decade of grading." And equally, in the article you linked to, they said, "Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers ended last night’s game with a -0.8 grade overall. This isn’t a bad game, just because the number begins with a minus, but it is an average grade, very close to zero ..." Anyone who can't tell that two different scales are being used when on one scale a grade very close to zero is average, and on the other the lowest grade they've given in the decade of their existence is 21.4, isn't using numbers with any care or concern for relevance. You are the one who picked that particular comparison, I have no idea why or where you got it. But you didn't do your research, clearly. You looked only at the two numbers, without checking what scales they were using, which was extremely easy to determine. Even in this latest post, you're still saying "I said they rated Rodgers lower than Fitz which they clearly did." No. They didn't. They gave him a higher number. On what is clearly a different scale, a Fahrenheit/Celsius comparison where the numbers can't be used to assume a rating. It's like saying, well, 100 ounces vs. 86 pounds, obviously since 100 is higher than 86, the thing that measures 100 must be the heavier object. Makes absolutely zero sense. Two different scales.

Yeah, where did you read that the analysts at PFF have been in the NFL or college football? They do interview people and find people who know football. But you're assuming they've played football with zero evidence. Everything I've seen says they don't require ex-players. Just people who know football and can pass their interview. They then get some training on the grading system, and then And that's not a knock on them. PFF does an excellent job. Again, if they didn't the teams wouldn't pay them. But they're And it's not like every PFF grader watches every game. There isn't time for that. Nowhere even slightly close. You're right that watching every snap and every guy's performance on it is important to understand thoroughly player performance in any given game.. Joe does that, every guy on every snap in every Bills game. And he's been doing it for years. He's very good. So are PFF. You can get plenty from both. Neither are perfect. If they disagree, you need to look at the film yourself and figure out which one is right, and further, compare what other film watchers are saying. Saying that PFF is right on an issue because they're PFF and Buscaglia is wrong because he's Buscaglia is simply a dumb ad hominem argument.

Yeah, wasn't that hilarious? Mosher, the guy Marino interviewed, said he was graded out as sensational at h-back and fullback. Said they'd used him that way around 100 snaps when they couldn't get him on the field any other way, even thrown him a few passes. Also said that in Dallas, he'd been a lot better as an RG than an LG, but they're very much set at RG with a probably future HOFer there, so he only got used at RG when Zack Martin was injured. But that when playing there, McGovern was a lot better. Which is just perfect for the Bills, wanting to put Bates back at LG as that's his best spot.

I don't know why the numbers are different. But I'm not the one who claimed that PFF has major grading issues because they thought the Fitz game was a better perfromance than the Rodgers game. Even though they clearly didn't. Again, maybe they changed their numbering system. Dunno. But your attack there is based on a mistake. Clearly they did not rank those games that way. They very clearly have the Rodgers game as average and the Fitz game as historically bad.

Sorry, what are you talking about? Yeah, you're right, "If Aaron Rodgers 5 TD 0 INT performance is rated 23 points lower than Ryan Fitzpatrick 6INT and 0 TD performance ... it has major grading issues." I'd agree. My IMO too. Here's the thing, though, PFF did NOT rate Fitz's 6 INT game higher than Aaron Rodgers's game. Or any other QB performance in history up to that time, actually. Here's what Sam Monson had to say about that, "New York Jets quarterback Ryan Fitzpatrick landed on PFF’s Team of the Week for his excellent performance in Week 2 in a Thursday night win over the Buffalo Bills, but he followed that up with a six-interception disaster against the Kansas City Chiefs in Week 3. That earned him a PFF grade of 21.4, a catastrophic score that isn’t just the worst single-game grade of the season, but is the worst single-game grade we have ever seen from a QB over the past decade of grading. To put it in even harsher perspective: PFF has graded 2,717 games of NFL regular and postseason play, and Fitzpatrick just posted the worst single-game performance we have ever seen. By our system it was worse than the Peyton Manning dumpster fire from a year ago against the Chiefs that saw him benched after four interceptions for his own sake. It was worse than any game Jamarcus Russell managed, or the trainwreck performance Josh Freeman had for the Vikings that seemed to have effectively ended his NFL career." That was written the day after the game. https://www.pff.com/news/pro-ryan-fitzpatrick-just-earned-the-lowest-pff-grade-weve-ever-given-a-qb And there is only one game in Fitz's career where he had 6 INTs. Don't know what numbers you're comparing exactly. Perhaps PFF has changed their system, or have two different systems? I don't know. But I do know they thought Rodgers' game was kinda average, just not as good as the stats would have painted it, and also thought that Fitzy was absolutely awful that game. So, what in the world are you talking about? As for subjectivity, yeah, it's a subjective system. Equally, absolutely anyone grading film is going to be using a subjective system based on opinion on how well the guy did what he was supposed to do. Absolutely everyone, even his own team will be including subjectivity, though certainly less so than anyone else. But PFF goes out of their way to tell their film graders that if you can't be sure what went on, don't grade that play.

Yup, and they'd be reasonable complaints. But not all FAs are compensatory FAs. It's very possible to bring in FAs who don't hurt you in the comp picks formula. RFAs and ERFAs are not CFAs, for example, so signing an RFA or an ERFA has no effect on your likelihood of receiving a comp pick. Lower-priced FAs - depending on the exact contract numbers, among other things - are also less likely to cancel out your comp picks. Also, there's a date after which FAs acquired don't affect the formula. It's somewhere in late July or early August if I remember correctly.

Yup.

And only add about $10M to the cap while creating another hole we'd have to fill with a free agent. For a 30-year-old who gets $20M each of the next four years, of which $35M guarantees the day after tomorrow, even against injury.

Love DaQuan, and I think you're right that you can and often do win FA without making splash signings. But if Von had stayed healthy, I thought we had an excellent chance of winning the SB. When he was injured, our odds dropped a lot. But it was Von's signing, or more specifically the high totals we spent in FA last year, that put us on a budget this year. The idea, though, that you can't get better without splash signings, though common, is ridiculous. We'll bring in a bunch more FAs, probably including one or two more mid-level guys. Plus we'll draft. Plus get healthy. Plus many of our younger guys will get better as they develop.

I hope a Victoria Secret model parachutes into my office. Not counting on it, though. The odds are strongly against both things.

Nah. Davis is very clearly a WR2. You started off very reasonable there, but then veered off into WackyTown. Then back to reasonable. But that does mean that a lot of your post made a lot of sense.

Yup. I'm a huge fan of ShakirBetta quoting Schefty on a statement he doesn't appear to have made. Do you suppose it's a bit of a warning that if you look at ShakirBetta's account, it says right at the top "do not take my tweets seriously"? Weirdly, the NFL store doesn't yet have a Hopkins Bills jersey yet.

Yeah, yeah. I'm expecting them to draft one early. Maybe bring in a mid-level FA. It'd be great if one of them did really great.

"The player grading is for the fans"? Do you have some quotations stating fro coaches and FO folks saying they never use the player grading? In one article I saw a while back a coach said that if their opinion on a player differs from PFF's, that's a signal for them to go back and watch some more tape to see where the disagreement comes from. That's a sign of respect. As for your Mahomes article above, I don't see any problem there, it looks like Chiefs fans whining to me. Allen was rated #1 that week. Waah, wash, said theChiefs fans. Did PFF say Mahomes was awful? Kinda bad? Average? They had him 8th in the league. The Chiefs fans are all wound up about this, calling it "disrespectful," and that's nonsense. Being graded 8th best in the league any particular week isn't disrespectful. Sometimes when QBs have a good statistical grade, it's because they do a tremendous job putting throws into tiny windows, keeping plays alive with their feet, and making great decisions. Other times it can be hitting throws where guys have been schemed wide open and the OL is giving him all day. I'm certainly not going to go back to watch those games and decide, but saying a guy who had a good game only had the 8th best game isn't unreasonable at all, at least not on the face of it it's not. What - specifically - is absolute garbage about that Packers article? Again, not going to go back and watch that Packers game, but from watching the highlights I agree with the specifics of the article. One thing that might be confusing is this, "No, they were expected throws with the credit going to Cobb for fighting through contact or defeating the coverage with speed to the edge. That makes these zero-graded throws: Three passes that have a massive effect on Rodgers’ statistical performance but do not increase his grade." That might seem a bit outrageous at first glance, but make a ton more sense when you understand that a zero grade for PFF does not have a bad meaning. It means you did what is expected, you did your job. Bad plays get graded negatively. I watched those three TD plays and I'd agree. Not especially good plays, just what you'd expect from any decent QB. Not that I think Einstein is right here. It's pretty clear that he's doing his twisty dance to blame everything possible on Beane and McDermott. Which makes zero sense, as though far from perfect, they're overall doing an excellent job.

Nonsense. You're a good and interesting poster, I go out of my way to read your stuff, but what you've got there is an opinion. Nothing wrong with having an opinion ... until you start to think that anyone with a different one is simply clueless. There's plenty of room for differing opinions on this guy. Don't know whether this has been posted here, but Joe Marino, for instance, watched five games and came away with a very different opinion. Which you can also disagree with, but Joe's not an idiot. Joe came away with the opinion that he's an above average pass blocker, very good at absorbing power rushes. A major step up from Saffold. Also that he's not as good of a run blocker. He thought that he's a positional guy, who will get in the right spot, but not by any means a road grader or a people mover. But that he's good at blocking in space and in finding and eliminating guys at the second level. Joe further thought he'd fit the Bills scheme a lot better than he had fit the Cowboys, as he'll be getting a lot of angle blocks here rather than the more straight forward power scheme the Cowboys use. This is at the very least a reasonable argument from a guy who knows his stuff. Not that you have to agree with him.

Definitely possible, but you don't save a lot of money. About $1.4M, but after you subtract the salary of the guy who replaces him on the roster, that's not much. My guess is they bring him back to compete and worry about whether or not to cut him in August.

Why wouldn't he change his opinion when new info comes to light? It's what reasonable people do.

I don't know where all the anger is from. McKissic wasn't the problem. The Skins were. As they so often are. But yeah, we don't need him now. He might find a spot somewhere, though. He's not exactly a guy with his tread worn off. 22 rushes and 33 catches last year. 1775 career snaps.

Yes, that would be idiotic. IMO all-in has two meanings. One is the one you refer to and the other is to be totally committed to something. I assumed OP meant completely committed. The Bills do that every year, I think. But yeah, if he meant the poker meaning of betting everything on one chance, sacrificing your future for your present, that's totally nuts with a young Josh Allen. If he was 39 or 40, now, it might be good strategy. The Brits mean "totally exhausted" when they say they are all in. I'm assuming that's not what OP meant.

They go all in every year. "Championship or bust," though, is an absolutely horrible strategy when you have a 26-year-old Josh Allen. It would be completely nuts. Luckily, it's against the philosophy that both McDermott and Beane have publicly announced from the beginning, every single time they are asked. Which is that they want to be competitive for a championship every year. With a young Josh Allen, that's possible. For a lot of years. The last thing they should do is sacrifice the future for the present. Luckily, it's directly against their philosophy and way of working.