Thurman#1

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.

Yeah, it was a great video. I just came here to post it if it hadn't been posted here. Didn't know much about him, to be honest. I wish Cover1 had posted a few run reps, but he showed a lot of protection reps against some really strong defenders and McGovern looked good.

This is pretty close to all nonsense. Yeah, Allen is hugely important to this team, and without him we wouldn't be nearly as good. But the rest of the team, without so many injuries, is also very good. It's not a mistake that we were generally considered one of the top two or three complete rosters in the league. It's also not a mistake that even when Allen was injured and considerably worse than he normally was, we still won two out of the next three games, despite Allen's very average 84.67 passer rating in those games. And frankly, if we hadn't lost Edmunds in the second half, it would probably have been three out of three. With Edmunds in in the first half the D looked excellent, and in the second half with him out, we looked awful. We have a good team even without Allen. Allen makes it a great team. With a replacement-level QB we'd still win a bunch. Probably not enough to make the playoffs, though maybe we would have, seeing two teams with only nine wins made the playoffs in the AFC. "The other 21 starting positions are weak," you say? That's frankly stupid thinking. You don't get the 4th ranked defense in DVOA, 6th in yards allowed and 2nd in points allowed, and that's with massive amounts of injuries, not with a weak roster. It's just stupid. We've got a bunch of good players on offense as well, though we certainly also have areas where improvement was absolutely needed, particularly at LG, RT though that may have been due to an injury, and slot.

I doubt that even entered their thoughts. More like, does Josh want to play? Can he? OK, we'll play him. I'm not going to miss him either, but replacing his ability to take over, and doing it as cheaply as possible, will become an important consideration.

Not convinced by Jeudy. I'd give a 3rd. Maybe if I got a 5th back, I'd up that to a 2nd. That might not get it done. I'd be fine with that.

Yup. Exactly. Also had to do with what Milano got on the open market. And may well have had to do with Milano giving us a bit of a home town discount, though there's no real way to be sure.

He's worth it. But not when the Bills are in cap trouble. He's a blue-chipper. That's why he's getting that salary. They'll fill the spot, but it'll hurt us more than many here think. There's been very little throwing to the middle against this defense. Lose Edmunds, and Poyer at the same time, and we'll see more. But that's life.

As I understand it, Allen's injury made it harder for him to throw short with accuracy. I think that explains it. I'd expect to see more of it next year. Assuming that's the explanation.

They were well over, had to happen.