RealityCheck

The NFL is not a qb driven league, it is an elite qb driven league. Look at all the trends and how they influence each other and there it is. It is a given that the teams with the best qbs are going deep into the playoffs and that the Super Bowl almost guarantees a battle between the league's top 2 qbs mano a mano. Manning vs Brady 2 was exactly the type of matchup they want to market. It is as simple as that. This team needs a guy that will be a top 5 talent league wide. Without that guy absolutely nothing will bring a Championship to Buffalo, or any other NFL team for that matter.

I think you need a bigger helmet.

Wow. Is there actual evidence to that claim?

Good stuff. Meathead's opinion is wrong but your stack of assumptions is right?

Outstanding work. And this means...

The problem with vanilla schemes is that there is more individual decision making required. There is a lot more to read in a base zone scheme than a manned up blitz scheme. These young corners are new to the concepts and reads vs. college. A vanilla scheme in reference to coverages is a misnomer in some very important regards.

All the team has to do is win. What is so hard about that?

The Toronto series makes sense only because there is money to be made. The NFL is about money. If another major city was in play guess what, playing a game there too would be on the table. In the end this is the price for losing for so long and in such an epic fashion. You can't lose 4 Super Bowls in a row as a region and easily shake the effects. It's as much psychological as it is a spiritual hangover. The next GM should be Dalai Lama type. A man with a vision beyond x's and o's or shuttle times and broad jumps. OWWMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

I don't put much stock in anything Wood says. It's usually just the Levitre talking.

The Jets are about to miss the playoffs for the second straight year.

Yes, just get "someone". Is that you Ralph?

The notion of Polian coming back to Buffalo would be too good to be true. Now there is a man with a body of work behind him.

Whaley has some serious street cred around here these days. What is his body of work that warrants such faith over other young GM hopefuls from the successful franchises, or some of the other available veteran GMs for that matter?

When is it too late?

I love TBD sometimes. So many want the team to lose out for the draft picks and/or justify getting rid of the current regime. Here we are some of those same people are crying about the outcome of the game. This is what losing out for the picks looks like. For those that wanted it, you got it.

That just about covers it.

I get the feeling he is losing on purpose. The question is why.

If I were to imagine switching Fitz with Palmer I have a hard time seeing Fitz winning a single game for the Raiders, or Palmer not being good enough in Chan's system to have won us 2 or 3 more games this year. But again, we will never know.

I will agree to disagree with all of your assumptions. Obviously our minds work in very different ways, and I am quite satisfied with that. You actually put a smile on my face.

I don't even know where to begin with your interpretation of what I posted. My argument is that how many times a QB drops back, gets hit, draws a roughing call, or doesn't get a roughing call is totally irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is the ACCURACY of the call/non-call and the corresponding frequency of those events. The proper way for the ex-chief of the refs to present this is a breakdown of what percentage of the time that a QB gets hit versus whether the refs made an accurate decision as to whether it was roughing or not based on the rules. The stats used say nothing of whether or not those calls were accurate or not. Based on that fact the question of bias/non-bias is not properly addressed. I have never blamed officiating for the Bills ineptitude. You responded to my post making many false assumptions as to my point. I made no mention of Brady favoritism/non-favoritism, I could care less about it and don't believe that there is bias(that is my belief and I have no stats to back that up). My post was solely on the validity of the math behind the assumption. You can't make a claim either way for bias simply because the wrong variables are used. So tell me, pick any QB you want in that article and tell me which QB was illegally hit the most (and it wasn't called) per drop back? Bias can work 2 ways. You can make a call to protect someone, or you can not make a call to hurt someone, such as seeing a guy get hit illegally and NOT throwing the flag. Even then missing a roughing call that should have been is not by itself evidence of an ulterior motive. Mistakes happen. Hence, nothing definitive either way can be derived from these stats in determining bias. To attempt to do so might be a symptom of a greater personal problem or agenda.

It's just like Major League.

I am sold. The day that I own an NFL team and want to lose an epic amount of games you would be my first choice. If I were the new owner of the Bills you could be instrumental in having all home games blacked out and setting the stage for moving the team. Once I move the team after a few 1-15 seasons and get the 1st overall pick, I would fire you (scapegoat) and get a real GM to right the ship, since after everything you typed points at a focus on losing and nothing about picking great players and managing the cap through it all. You make me think of Al Bundy's genius..."if you're gonna lose, lose big".

That is a ridiculous way to claim that there is no bias on the roughing the passer calls. His math does not support that bogus assumption and it is insulting that he is selling it as valid. Based on the rules he outlines which dictate what qualifies as a LEGITIMATE roughing the passer call/non-call that alone is the determining factor in evaluating bias, if there is any. Where are his numbers that show whether these calls/non-calls are legitimate in the first place? Absolutely nothing definitive can be derived from the variables he uses, roughing calls for every 100 pass attempts, just ridiculous. Correct/incorrect calls begin and end there when evaluating refs and he conspicuously does not address that while throwing ambiguous math around to distract from the real question. The man has a future in politics/marketing/PR work.

For many fans playing the run well doesn't count.