Thurman#1

So, you feel we have fewer great catches than other teams? And your evidence is that you "seem to see a lot of great catches" from other teams? You're aware that there are 32 teams right? And that 31 of them are not the Bills? Which would mean that if everything went as expected we'd see 31x the number of catches from other teams as the Bills? You did say the same thing twice, in different sentences, that you saw lots from other teams. Again, the slightest bit of thought would point out the wildly obvious reason it seems that way. And then your other bit of evidence is pointing out a few times when the Bills did make those catches? I mean, seriously, that's all your evidence and the thought you've put into it? Jesus!

See, you're making his point. This is a tell!!!

But the one whose narrative better fits the fact that the Niners didn't even put in a waiver claim will be the one who's correct.

There really is reason for it.. The NFL's been given various protections in terms of things like antitrust exemptions. That makes them of interest to Congress. All of which has been determined and known for decades. You might not like Congress. Fair enough. But they do have an iron in this fire.

Sorry, that's dumb. Because one guy with one background picks something up simply does not mean that every guy with every background, every capability, and every physical build, should pick it up as quickly. That's simply not the way it works. It's the way a guy desperate to win an argument and susceptible to confirmation bias argues. But it simply doesn't fit with the real world. Elam dealt with almost all man-to-man in college. Go back and look at the draft reports. It's all over them that Benford was really good in zone. See the difference there? "Excellent in zone coverage, whether he is playing tight or soft coverage." https://www.si.com/nfl/draft/news/christianbenford

Sure, bigger fish, smaller fish and other fish. None of which should prevent them from frying this fish or any other they want.

You're right that they're not perfect. Significant misstatement on Teller, though. They didn't have one of the best guards on the NFL on their roster. They had on their roster a guy who would turn into one of the best guards in the run game but not all that great at the passing game when put into a different system with a different coach. When the Bills had him, he wasn't especially good. They just didn't have room on the team for a guy playing the way he was playing. It's also questionable whether he would play as well as he plays in Cleveland in our scheme. Fair enough on Benjamin, though that move got them to the playoffs. And fair enough on Ford. Are you now going to go through all of the good to great moves they made? Or just find ones that are negative? Your constant focus on the negative on an extremely good team is easily noticeable. Yes, that they did it doesn't make it right. But as far as looking at the past tells you about the future, the fact that most of the stuff they do is right means it's more likely than not to be right, though not a sure thing, certainly.

That's ridiculous. Elam's been good sometimes, particularly when they play man, and OK a large amount of times, and bad other times. They knew it was likely to take time. He was a man-to-man guy being drafted onto a team that plays more zone, and a particularly intricate and reactive zone as well.

Most seem to think it's not all that mysterious, from what I hear people like Cover1, Buscaglia and others saying. Elam's not there yet with zone coverage, is what most think. And we're primarily a zone team, though our frequency changes game to game. In man, Elam seems to already be the best of the group behind White, most likely. But he needs work on zone. Is anyone saying much different? He doesn't draft for need, as he's made clear. But he does drop guys if they aren't fits or at positions of need. That effectively lifts guys at positions of need a bit higher. And if there are several guys very very closely evaluated he absolutely goes with the guy at the position of need. Pretty much everyone does. But he does not reach for need. It's a core principle for him. He believes it's bad for the team. I'd argue he's correct about that. We were drafting CB in the first round if there was a good one there for us. There was, in their opinion. We'll see down the line how correct they were.

What's sad? Oh, you're talking about your own opinion? Yeah, wouldn't have expected that of you, but nice call. And if you call that piling on, you live a sad and sheltered life. What I said there are facts. Does that sound familiar by the way? The difference being you used facts to draw unwarranted inferences. And I pointed out that the facts didn't show what you thought they did.

Yeah. Thing is, this artificial stat isn't a measure of coaching success. it's a measure of team success. As is any look at any type of wins. The key to this is that the length is being artificially adjusted to the length of the coach's service. This measure will unfairly punish teams who have their coach go through a rebuild. Teams with coaches brought in to turn around a crap team are punished. Regardless of whether or not they successfully did turn around that team, they're punished for the years of the rebuild while teams with coaches brought into a situation built for quick success in a reload, such as LaFleur, are unfairly rewarded. It also unfairly rewards coaches with long terms, as there's only one year it looks at where there's one bye. All the rest have two. By this measure, the great Barry Switzer would be seen as the third-best NFL coach on the list. If he'd been looked at after his first two years he'd have been seen as far beyond any coach on the list and one of the greatest of all time, with a 3.5. Perhaps even the greatest of all time, without going through every coach. (Spoiler alert for those who don't remember Barry. He was not a great coach. He was a coach given a great team at the beginning of his term.) Again, it's a measure of team success, not coaching. And a weird measure, at that. Coaching certainly has an effect on team success. So do many other things.

It gets sad, and clueless, doesn't it? I'm guessing next comes a study of hair length as an objective measure of success, with long hair better, followed by frequency of clapping as an objective measure of failure.

... who are telling it the way it is.

Charles Grodin was an absolute national treasure!!!

He's one of the best in the league and everybody knows it but a small group of desperate Bills fans. Yeah, that's right. He hasn't won a Super Bowl. Neither had Andy Reid, until he did. Neither had Bill Belichick, until he did. I could go on and on and on. He is a terrific coach. He still has something to prove, as does nearly everyone. Look at Belichick now. Many think he's getting close to being on the hot seat.

I hate the idea of expanding. But I also hate that one team gets such a huge advantage. Honestly, six in each conference was the way to go. But they've already left that behind for more money.

As he should. He's been great here, just terrific. He'll be hard to replace. Not impossible, but he has been a terrific fit. Good for him!!!! EDIT: People think the 0:13 thing is going to hurt him? That's nuts. Being beaten by Mahomes playing at his absolute best isn't something teams blame defenses for, anymore than is being beaten by Allen. A player has already admitted the right call was made and he played the wrong spacing, creating the big play. Won't hurt Frazier at all. His age might.

Yeah, this is nonsense. It will absolutely hurt. And Jerry Hughes? I snorted involuntarily as I read that. Hughes is very good. Miller is still playing great.

Milano didn't play that game, nor did Poyer. That left Terrel Bernard and Jaquan Johnson playing. I think the Bills defense will be quite a bit better this week. Haven't gotten a sense yet as far as how well Tre is playing. Is he back to what he was? Or will that take till next season? I haven't had time to watch the All-22 on him the past couple of weeks.

I don't see exactly what you're talking about there. You say, "But Allen doesn't just 'jump into a pile of defenders.'" But that's not what Kubiak said. The "just" there is yours, not his. Yeah, he didn't just jump into a pile of defenders. But he did jump into a pile of defenders, which is what Kubiak said. Nor was he being the slightest bit insulting about Allen's performance on the play. Complimentary if anything, except perhaps implying worry about Allen's injury risk on the play with his word choice. I worried about it too at that time. He absolutely did jump up over McCourty who then had an opportunity to bring him down with some real impact. I'm with you about the injury risk. I wish he'd stop, but he just keeps doing these things. Kubiak was complimentary from the beginning about Allen, with good reason of course. I always enjoy his articles. He breaks things down very well. And you're right that was an interesting note about the route coming from film study. I wish he'd been a bit more detailed about what he's seen, but even so it was good stuff. Thanks.

True. But it's also true that there's never in league history been a team doing 3 games in 12 days without a single game at home. This was a very difficult stretch. And yet they won all three.

This is just dumb. And not a little bit. This isn't about culture or player commitment. Both teams have terrific culture and extreme commitment. The Bills are coming off three away games in 12 days. They need rest more than anything else. And they won those three games. They are rewarding themselves. With rest. For those who are going home, that's not something they do every week, it's a nine-day week. The Chiefs are coming off a loss. This is their equivalent of running laps after screwing up. They are on a seven day week and don't have time to go home if they wanted to. They are also less exhausted, coming off three games in 15 days, only two of which were away. Do you know how many Bills come in to do rehab or lift weights on Mondays of seven-day weeks? Yeah, didn't think so. Genuinely, a clueless knee-jerk dumb take. If we were coming off a horrible loss or something, takes this awful would be ever so slightly understandable. But we are not.

That is the question. After signing Von Miller we left ourselves to two or three years of cap shenanigans. Not too many, they won't be like the Saints or anything, but making that move meant either really serious cuts or more than their usual shenanigans. It's why if any of the guys who are question marks insist on max market value (a reasonable thing, really) they are not likely to be kept. IMO Tremaine loves it here and will not insist on max. But will the discount he is willing to give be enough? IMO it will. But really we'll have to see.

Perhaps if it were only my eyes. But it's not. Cover1 says this, Joe B does, the announcers who've weighed in agreed. Everyone, really. It's the consensus. And frankly, it only makes sense. With a line that was below average, we wouldn't be as good as this offense is. It just wouldn't make sense. Even Allen gets worse when rushed consistently. And early in the year when they were having problems, the RBs weren't going anywhere. Now they are. There's several reasons for that but the main one is that the OL just plain is not below average, though at the beginning of the season calling them that might have been fair.