Thurman#1

If it tells you that, that's because you're making invalid conclusions from insufficient data. All it can legitimately tell you right now is that he's not signed yet. What that means will need a lot more time and data to figure out. Oh, and as for various things people have said in this thread about how much the OL is responsible for our run problems, there's two stats to look at that address that. Football Outsiders has two stats called Adjusted Line Yards and RB yards. https://www.footballoutsiders.com/help/article/adjusted-line-yards There's a comprehensive explanation at that link, but basically they statistically separate yards the line is responsible for from the yards the RB is responsible for. Doing so perfectly is not possible, of course. But their methodology makes a ton of sense and generally does put fit the eye test as well as any stat ever does. Generally, if the RB yards are not much higher than the Adj. Line Yards, the blocking is responsible for more of that team's productivity in the run game than the RBs are. So, if you subtract Adj. Line Yards from RB yards, the higher the quotient, the more the RBs rather than the OL is responsible for any success. Again, doesn't mean the running attack is good. Just that the RB is more responsible for any success than the OL. The Bills quotient was 6th highest in the league last year. It was more about the RBs than the OL in Buffalo in terms of who was more responsible for the yards they actually got.

You do know that more free agents will be signed after than have been signed so far, right? Whether you like it or not, it's a poor argument. If he hasn't been signed in August and September, it will at that time be a very good argument. Now, though, it's just bad.

Jeez, this is getting sad, dude. You want me to explain the playoff game? In a Singletary thread? Including apparently expecting me to explain how the Bills DL sucked while missing its two best players? Yeah, sorry, not going to do all that. You'll have to figure that out yourself. Though, I'm not hopeful. Extremely quick version: the whole Bills team sucked, they looked like they were absolutely emotionally drained from seeing Hamlin die and all the rest of the chaos this season. As for whether the blame was mostly on Singletary or the line, yeah, Singletary went 6 for 25 in that game. Which is not bad. Whereas Cook went 5 for 13. Allen was 8 for 26. But you're going to argue the Bills OL was good and Singletary was bad? Sorry again, dude, that is too obvious to require much explanation. Everyone was bad in that game. But the OL had a large large share of the blame. You're just continuously wrong here, and not willng to admit it. No, I didn't hear of Singletary visiting any teams. I also didn't hear Connor McGovern visit any teams, including us. It's not an opinion that you don't have a clue whether any teams are interested. It's a simple fact. Whether or not you get that.\ We've got a starting RB now in Cook. And if we bring back Singletary - not saying we will, but if we do - we'll have another, though my guess is that this year Cook will get more carries even if Singletary does come back. Honestly, you're just throwing out arguments at this point that don't make much sense. I'm not promising to answer another, though I'll take a quick look.

Oh, and Allen is running so much and taking so many hits for several reasons, one of which is that a QB run gives you a one-man advantage, which an RB run does not. It's easier. That's surely a great deal of the reason they call lots of QB runs despite having RBs who are often successful when they run. Not to mention that many of his runs come from scrambles that turn into runs. And Singletary does indeed rely on quickness and making guys miss. That's why he is consistently in the top four in the NFL of forcing missed tackles. 2021 7th at missed tackles per attempt %age https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-most-elusive-running-backs-2021-season 2022 5th at missed tackles per attempt %age https://www.rotoballer.com/fantasy-football-running-back-sleepers-missed-tackles-2022/995606#Missed_Tackles_Forced_Data (see graph) 2019 2nd at missed tackles per attempt %age "[Singletary] forced 0.25 missed tackles per attempt, second-best in the league. " https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-backfield-rankings-all-32-running-back-units-entering-the-2020-nfl-season 2022 6th at broken+missed tackles forced %age https://www.fantasypros.com/2022/07/rb-broken-plus-missed-tackles-forced-percentage-analysis-2022-fantasy-football-javonte-williams-elijah-mitchell-ezekiel-elliott/ Your idea that he can't force missed tackles, that, "that is not going to happen against most NFL defensive players" is just plain wrong.

Yeah, that's a straw man and a wild exaggeration. Could you please point out to me where I said that "it's all on the line"? No, you can't, because I didn't say that. If you want to answer me, reply to what I actually said. As for me explaining , sure, I'll explain it when you explain how you know that "no other teams are interested." Are you Singletary? His agent? His mother? I presume not. So you haven't a clue, anymore than I do. But I didn't pretend I did. What you know is that he hasn't signed a contract. And there are many possible reasons for that, most particularly money disagreements and the teams trying to wait guys out to drop their prices. Hundreds more players will be signed. Singletary could easily be one of them. They do need another starting level RB. Perhaps even two. Re-signing Singletary for a salary that they could both agree on would absolutely provide one.

Well, if you have picked out 5 particular players and without getting any of them you decide the Bills have failed, you've pretty much decided they can't be successful in your eyes. I'd grade your list as unsuccessful, myself. A success in my opinion won't be known till the season. The rest of FA is likely to be just what everyone should have expected when looking at our cap condition. A bunch of low- to mid-level guys. That's what it's been so far. I'd expect more of the same. This is dumb. Beane's draft record being called "awful" says a lot more about you than it does about him. He hasn't been great. But he's been good. That's a significant part of the reason we won 13 games.

That was the Bills DL with probably their two best players missing, Mr. Miller and Mr. Jones. The Bengals also had problems, but we didn't have the guys to take advantage of their problems that week. Worth remembering, not to mention that we'd had a guy die on the field. The whole Bills team was really off, they looked emotionally spent. The Bills D allowed the Bengals to score their average. While the Bills O scored ten points less than the average points the Bengals allowed. Yet somehow folks here only want to talk about the defense. The whole team was bad. But the offense was absolutely awful.

Yeah, um, he's got 10 first downs and one TD on 3rd down and 1-3 yards this year, behind that OL that isn't great. Five attempts the year before that, for 42 yards, another TD and three first downs. For his career, he's got two carries on 4th and 1-3 and on both he got enough for first downs, though one was actually a TD instead. For his career, 35 attempts at 3rd and 1-3 and 24 first downs. Again, behind that line. He does lose a lot of carries because Allen is so good and so tough and running Allen means you have a man advantage. But Singletary is pretty good at it, though behind that line.

Inarguably is a bit strong. But yeah, probably a bit above average. He's always among the leaders in missed tackles and he does very well at YPA despite an OL that is probably below average. He's a good player. Not great, but good. Wouldn't be surprised to see them bring him back, based largely on what the price ends up being. You don't need to be fast. You need to be effective. Motor is effective.

I am glad that you have a rich and interesting dream life.

I see. Fair enough. I just get sick of the "He said something nice about the guy so it must be lies because the player is my favorite scapegoat," crowd. Having said that, I'd disagree with you in your characterization of what Beane said. The positives weren't just great teammate, hard worker stuff. They were specific. And the negatives weren't fell a bit short this year but room to improve, either. Here's the quotation: “We honestly didn’t think that we would play him game one,” General Manager Brandon Beane said. “He got himself there, but we got there without all the reps that you need as a veteran. Like, I wouldn’t have wanted to put Dion Dawkins out there without all those reps. So what I saw in Spencer is a guy, the second half the season that played better than the first half of the season. “I got a lot of confidence in him. He’s maturing, he’s understanding the league, a lot different type of pass rusher he’s having to block here than what he saw at Northern Iowa. So, I would ask people that are critical of him – give him some due. I thought Spencer was showing an arrow up, but again, we’re not going to give him a roster spot. We’re going to bring in competition, the best we can and I expect him to answer the bell.” That's more positive than you're implying. It's saying not just that we think a lot of his problems were injury- and time-off-related, but that he improved over the season and specifics in how. And the only negative, really was that his spot isn't guaranteed in any way, we'll bring in competition.

Beane is a very candid GM. He has no problem expressing frustration with players, none. Can we lay this dumb trope to rest? I would expect him to express dissatisfaction in a way that's not impolite or personal ... if that's what he actually meant. He's done it many times before. When he expresses satisfaction in a very specific way, it's because it is what he means. He'd have had no problems saying something along the lines of, "He knows he's not playing at a level that we expect. He's very aware of this and he's not happy himself with how last season went. We expect him to work hard and improve. We know he's a hard worker and should improve. But we do expect yadda yadda yadda." He's done this many times. If dissatisfied, I'd expect him to say something along those lines. The fact that he was very specific in his praise tells me and should tell everyone that he means it. You'll notice he also didn't say, "We don't think we need to bring in any competition for him. He will be our starting RT for the next ten years," either. He didn't feel that and didn't say it. He says what he means about our players. Politely, of course, but he gets his point across.

He is a top GM. But what he did so far is solidly decent. Some good smart signings. Getting under the cap was something pretty much all of us knew would happen and knew how as well. This is no magic trick. Solid moves, a lot of grinding. I don't see reason to be much more optimistic than you were a week ago. But a week ago there was excellent reason to be optimistic. The end of the season was crushing, but next year has looked good pretty much as soon as you got over that Cincy loss.

Let's see, 13-3, 11-6 and 13-3 the last three years. Yeah, it is working well so far. It's always awkward when someone tries sarcasm and gets it pointed out that what they said was actually correct. And that's what happened here. Could have been better, of course, but yes, it's working out well. And yes, this team will live and die with Allen as it should. They should put together a solid run game, but they don't need to spend a bunch of money on a bellcow. that's not how the league works anymore, with few exceptions who haven't won SBs lately.

Excuse me, sir, the 1980s are on the line for you. They're asking you to come back home. That's a slight exaggeration, of course. It's really the early oughties you have to go back to. But you only have to look at recent Super Bowl teams to know that you simply don't need a guy like this anymore. There might be areas where a change of philosophy would do us good. Going back to the era of the work horse back is not one of those areas. There really is zero reason to think this is part of our problem. Zero. This has been said a million times here, but since 2008 there have been three SB-winning teams with 1000 yard backs. That's three out of fifteen. None in the last six years. Sorry, man, but the game has changed. Live in the past if you must, but people will notice that you're not really up to date.

Yes, we could. No, it's wildly unlikely. "For some reason ..." and then no reason is given. I'll give you a hint. The reason is that you like the idea. What you have there is a case of confirmation bias.

I've never seen it, and I'd guess it's new. I bet they get away with it because though he has announced his retirement, he hasn't yet filed the official papers. Remember Eric Wood announcing his retirement and then trying to walk it back awkwardly because it worked out differently financially to have the Bills give him an injury settlement and release him before he retired?

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.