SoFFacet
-
Posts
304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SoFFacet
-
-
They violated the flowchart yesterday.
-
It's actually the EXACT throw I wanted there: take a deep shot to Goodwin.
It's a fast, easy read that virtually assures that the ball comes out quickly, which means only 4 things can happen:
1) deep completion
2) incompletion & punt
3) interception (same as a punt)
4) DPI
The interesting question is whether or not Peterson should've caught it...
My thoughts exactly. Deep INT on 3rd down = Punt is textbook. I guess the play happens too fast for him to check his exact yardline, but based on where he caught it Peterson would have been better advised to let that sail out of bounds.
-
I don't know where people get this idea that it's reasonable to expect a QB that never makes mistakes or has bad games. There are like 2-3 guys in the league that one could accurately say make few mistakes and has few bad games. Unless you have one of those guys, your QB is going to cost you a game sometimes. It's just hilarious seeing some on that forum argue that Smith or Petty or Hack would give them better chances on average.
Honestly, the same thing is happening with Cardinals fans right now. Palmer had a bad game and now apparently he is bad and the Cardinals are going to be bad as long as he's the QB. Never mind the totality of what that team has done since Arians took over.
-
The Texans were just stomped 27-0, so if this thread was premised on the idea that the Pats were supposed to be easy pickings next week...
-
All respect, Alpha, I just don't buy this line of reasoning. Scoring fast is GOOD. Blaming the O for scoring efficiently is cray-cray. See: K-Gun. The D spent 8:19 on the field before the O even touched the ball.
The D controls its own fate, always. All they have to do is get the stop and hand the ball back to the O. If the O goes 3 and out, rinse and repeat.
The D looked bad. They made Fitz look like Brees or Brady. Ain't that some sh**.
Scoring is good. Whether it's better to score quickly or slowly is situation dependent. But you're obviously never going to order the offense not to score one way just because the other would be preferable. Whether you score or go 3 & out, fast drives do contribute to gassing the defense.
-
He's a good player on a bad team. Wins and losses are a team outcome. Dumb thread is dumb.
-
Last night was the nail in the coffin for Doug Whaley IMHO. He has failed to man a roster that is competitive within our division. The most blatant example is our relatively short corners trying to defend against the Jets towering receivers. Same issue with the Patriots that feature a fast tall tight end. Same with the Dolphins.
An 8" height advantage for a receiver or TE is simply ridiculous. Most QBs in the league could complete passes to the Jets receivers vs. the Bills corners.
Coaching did all they could to defense against the Jets offense - employing (7) DBs at one point.
The accountability for the Bills performance lies with the GM.
Guaranteed that if we had a DB corps full of Shermans people would be complaining about them getting undressed by New England's army of shifty slot guys. Backseat Internet GM ftw amirite?
-
for 6 days? or 18 games?
So far this season.
-
Dunno if it's been mentioned but is it possible that the offenses inability to convert third downs/sustain long drives gassed the defense? The TOP spread was way lopsided last night.
Of course, but people are too busy memeing about 37 points allowed / fire OC to discuss the fact that the offense has been worse than the defense, on the whole, so far.
-
Roman was fine last year, maybe even good. I had no inclination that the offense would suck as much as it has through two games. But it was fairly obvious that the worst part of this team so far this year has been the offensive scheme. They can't pick up first downs and sustain normal drives. Almost every running play has been blown up in the backfield. The intermediate passing game is non-existent. The defense was just smoked, but that was a very good offense and the offense left them on the field for 40 minutes. They played well in week 1.
Unfortunately, there's almost no way that a new OC will be able to fix this midseason.
-
I gotta say, this is one of the most transparent scapegoat firings in recent memory.
Honestly, had they done this after week 1, few would argue...but after letting Fitzpatrick hang 37 points on you...seems pretty obvious Rex is scared. I'd expect the blame game to continue as the losses pile on.
I don't see how it's a scapegoat firing, the offense has legitimately sucked. We came within one down of being shut out last week. 31 points this week is incredibly deceptive, as 7 were off a broken play, 7 were from the defense, and 7 were in garbage time. Slightly more credit for the bomb to Goodwin. But we scored 3 points off of "normal" drives.
The defense was actually playing pretty good in the first quarter. They were most likely worn down by the 2:1 TOP disadvantage that stems from a completely incompetent offense that can't pick up first downs.
-
There's nothing "wrong" with him. He's still a very good back. But:
1. He's almost certainly lost a step or two. That happens to the best of them by their late 20s after that many carries.
2. He's ill-suited to this Raiders 1971 style offense. That would require the 3 yards and a cloud of dust grinder combined with fast big-play guys.
They actually run very little out of heavy formations. It's mostly draws and treys out of shotgun formations. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that they would do much better if they would just go full Schaub/Foster/Johnson Texans and run power and play action rollouts the whole game. McCoy might not be an ideal fit for that but he could do it if it were blocked properly. Right now nothing is blocked properly, he's getting met in the backfield on almost every handoff.
-
The guy is getting met in the backfield on almost every play.
-
From what I understand Bosa's side have proposed contracts that are totally consistent with other top-5 picks under the current CBA (i.e. they either get no offset language or 100% 1st year SB). The Chargers are arguing that they've never conceded either of those things to one of their rookies. But of course, they've never had a top-5 pick under this CBA before. So I think it's pretty clear that the Chargers are the ones being unreasonable here. If Bosa meets the Chargers half-way, he's signing an arbitrarily worse contract than any other 3rd overall pick has signed. The Chargers seem to have the leverage to get their way by force, but why should they want to? It makes them look cheap, and now this public smear campaign against their own player makes them look petty.
-
Well OK, having said that then, one would think that by pure laws of averages that after say 10 seasons then that every team would be .500 or so, right?
Since Whaley's been here, the only common denominator during that stretch, we are 39-57, or .406 and trending downward.
At some point people need to start saying, OK, we've tried this and that under Whaley and clearly he's underperforming, it's time to move on.
At best for us, what DR was suggesting, is that in a purely odds-based system, at the end of the day over the longer term, all teams will trend towards .500. I can run an analysis, and have in the past, to show that we're on the losing side of those odds.
But clearly it isn't just odds every season. Clearly how well teams are run, coached, managed, etc. factors in heavily, which is only bad news for us and Whaley.
As well, the other stuff you mention, you cannot have it both ways. Luck, schedules, injuries, etc., all happen to all teams and that is something that should trend towards a central average for all teams over the long haul, for the most part. But you cannot state that as if we're the only team affected by them. That's an irrational bias.
I'll suggest now that Watkins is going to limp through this season again and even miss a significant number of games. I expect him to be IR'd at some point given his injury. Either way, if that happens there's going to be so much work to do to bring this team up to competitiveness in the next couple of seasons, so much work. We'll be starting 20 seasons of playoff futility in the eyes.
Pot meet kettle. You are tripping hard on the so-called "law of averages":
The law of averages is a layman's term for a belief that the statistical distribution of outcomes among members of a small sample must reflect the distribution of outcomes across the population as a whole.
As invoked in everyday life, the "law" usually reflects wishful thinking or a poor understanding of statistics rather than any mathematical principle. While there is a real theorem that a random variable will reflect its underlying probability over a very large sample, the law of averages typically assumes that unnatural short-term "balance" must occur.
So, you set out a long-term benchmark, disingenuously selected an inappropriate statistic (39-57) to fail that benchmark, neglected the more appropriate statistic (23-25) because it contradicted your argument, and dismissed contextual considerations because you are apparently unaware that in this case the sample size of outcomes is never going to be large enough for your line of reasoning to have a rational basis.
-
They promised playoffs. They dusted off Kelly & Co. from mothballs and paraded everyone around, promised "a bully," absolutely no one involved with the team took an alternate position.
If that's not win now I have no idea what is.
None of those things have anything to do with being in "win now mode" or not...
This is Whaley's 4th season as GM. Suppose we finish less than .500 now, why should he be kept on with records of 6-10, 9-7, 8-8, and a losing season (again, assuming that it is), and 23-25 to date otherwise trending downward, which clearly shows regression, not improvement?
Again, if he were the GM of the Raiders, Browns, or another team with that record I cannot imagine one single person wishing he'd come here to be our GM much less not making fun of him.
Context-less, outcome-oriented evaluation is an illogical thought process. For instance, strength of schedule is a factor that varies year to year outside of a team's control, and on that basis alone a team could improve or decline in a vacuum and not wind up with a delta-record that indicates that that is so. Same goes for injury luck and even just bounces within each game. Each game result is a probabilistic outcome and all that a GM can do is improve a team's chances.
When you evaluate a GM you need dissociate from the results and look at the decisions. Did they increase the chances of winning? Did they make sense given the information available at the time they were made? Because you don't hire a new GM to make different decisions than his predecessor in the same situations. He's going to face new situations, and all that you will be able to ask of him is to make decisions that increase the team's chances of winning, and make sense given the information available at the time.
-
I feel like this is said every season by the fans and media about the Bills and other teams, but what does it even mean, and is it true? Does it mean that they are all in for the short term, thinking they are just a piece or two away from the playoffs? Does it mean the GM and HC are fired after the season if they don't make the playoffs and/or have a winning season?
I think it's possible they are thinking they are all in for this year with not as much focus on the long term. Specifically because of the playoff drought. But I think it's just as possible they are more focused on long-term building of the team. Whaley just signed an extension, it's only the coach's 2nd year, and their core players at QB, WR, LT, CB, DT, LB and DE are very young. I never bought that they were in "win-now" mode the last few years simply because it wasn't realistic. They didn't have the most important position, QB. I still think it's kind of a minor rebuild with a long term vision (nothing like the Browns are doing, but a smaller scale version of that -- considering the Bills were a better team to start off), beginning last year.
Without being a fly on the wall at OBD I'm just guessing, but not sure it's a "playoffs or everyone is gone" atmosphere or culture from what I can tell. It seems like the fans as a whole want it that way, I just don't know if that is indeed the case.
Thoughts?
"Win now mode" is a garbage media narrative that was thrust upon the Bills after they traded their 2015 1st round pick. Its a gross oversimplification that willfully ignores that over the course of an entire career, player A could perfectly well be contribute more over the long term than players B and C combined.
Last season was must win season. This year, not so much. This seems like yr. 1 of a defensive rebuild. Three potential new starters on d(rookies), doesn't sound like win now to me.
Fairly well put. Last year they hoped to build on a 9-7 team, and the FAs they brought in helped increase their chances of making the playoffs. Even so, their actions did not have a significant adverse effect on their chances in subsequent seasons, so calling it a "win now" season would still be a stretch. But the fact is that almost all coaching changes, particularly ones that completely change the defensive scheme, require transitional years, and we saw why last year. Now we are in year 2 of a coach's tenure, with several rookies being heavily counted upon on defense, and a "prove it" QB. None of those are traits of an immediate contender, but they still have decent chances of getting the wild card. Some people don't understand that the outcomes of games are just probabilistic results, and all that a GM can do is increase a team's chances.
That's an interesting take, but it disagrees with the popular notion that both Whaley & Ryan are gone after the season if they don't make the playoffs. I don't know what to believe on that since nothing has officially/formally been announced as such, and frankly, if Pegula couldn't see the problems coming in as the fan that he said he was, I have zero confidence that he'll see it at all any other time. It's been obviously for 15 years what the core problems are and all he did was dig in on them. I'll predict 5-11 again and that both Whaley & Ryan will both still be here next season.
Let's assume that this was not a win-now year then, would that alter the take on the Draft then? Not necessarily by you, generally speaking.
That's just a garbage notion that's only ever been "popular" with a certain small, loud internet peanut gallery. There is no evidence to indicate that their seats are even lukewarm.
This thread is embarrassing for many reasons. Its a typical TBD, semantics based, circle jerk with a side of Mongolian cluster f@#$ as the topic has been framed so poorly.
The organization is not in win now mode. No matter what a coach or the players may say in an interview, teams with question marks at QB are not in win now mode. If you want to see win now mode, look at Denver since acquiring Manning. They were all over free agency, loading up for a 2 or 3 year run. Talib, Dumervil, Welker, Vernon Davis, Sanders, Ward. Some of those moves were flops, but they went for it with big money short term deals to win while Manning could still play.
http://www.milehighreport.com/2014/4/9/5596570/broncos-free-agency-grades-2014
Basically sitting out free agency and extending your own drafted and developed talent is not win now. Replacing your free agents with draft picks is not win now. Its a thoughtful and sustainable approach to managing a franchise.
Every coach and player will talk about win now since that's their only goal. Theirs is a short term view regardless of circumstance. Win now is reflected in the actions of decision makers. Unless your coach is GM, its really not up to them. Rex, Rob, and a dozen guy named Williams can talk about winning now, or all in, or any other catch phrase but you only need to pay attention to what the front office is doing to answer that question.
Truth.
-
Maybe they should have polled white, urban SJWs to get the 'correct' answer.
?
Its a derogatory term used by trolls to refer to normal people that bother to argue with trolls on the internet. Sort of like a millennial version of the term, "libtard." Accordingly, the vast majority of the people wielding the cudgel are less intelligent and less reasonable than the vast majority of the people it is wielded against.
-
It shouldn't be a surprise with so many Iranian expatriates in the NYC area and how brutal the Shah was during his reign. It was a distinct possibility that someone would seek retribution for all of the atrocities he was responsible for.
.... .... .... What is going on in this thread?
-
So what would you consider this team?
Spunky?
The internet seems to have a difficult time with the concept that "competitive" and "mediocre" are synonyms in the NFL.
Well, when you're the GM of a football team that's 23-25 during your tenure, that probably means it's in the best interest of your future employment to be in "win now mode." Especially when you're working for people who didn't hire you.
When you're a NFL HC being paid 5M+ per season and you've been the beneficiary of millions in team spending on players, just got three (well, almost) rookies to play the defense, hired your brother, and make bombastic statements not grounded in reality, it's probably best to be in "win now mode."
If you're not in "win now mode" what mode are you in? I know in Buffalo there's been a lot of "Rebuilding" mode, but the latest rebuild has been going on since 2013. Or perhaps it's still the original 2010 rebuild, act 2. Hard to tell, considering they've changed coaches 3 times since 2010 and the GM has been here all this time.
Maybe Terry and Kim just like to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hopefully win.
It's all just a media narrative anyway. By that logic, every team in the NFL is in "win now mode" to varying but similar degrees. Which means that nobody is. The term is meaningless.
You singled out 2014 as the year we supposedly entered this mode and then listed some factoids about the year 2016 as "proof." So I'm going to assume that your statement was originally meant to refer to the Watkins trade. And the idea that trading up for Watkins somehow put us in a different mode than we were before, is a garbage media narrative with no basis in reality.
-
The 2015 19th overall pick signed a 4 year 9.4M contract with a 5.1M signing bonus. At a 5% increase, Buffalo probably needs to pay SL almost 10M with about a 5.5M bonus.
I'm sure TPegs is thrilled to shell out this money. Just like I'm sure he's satisfied with his GM and HC who sold him on damaged goods that will miss the entire off-season and at least 2 games.
All this for a team that's been in win-now mode since 2014 without, of course, actually winning.
"Win now mode" is a garbage media narrative. What evidence is there that such a mode exists, and that we are in it? We're in the 2nd year of a new coach's tenure, our QB is still in the "prove it" stage, and last year's defense was legitimately bad. Which one of those is the trait of a contender?
-
Jaylon Smith would be my pick if he is ready by week 8
I was of the opposite opinion only a few days ago but I'm starting to convince myself that we can take him with #19 even if he sits the whole year. Even if we draft an immediate contributor #19, most of the improvement on defense next year is going to need to come from increased familiarity. As long as the recovery is going smoothly and as long as there was no truth to that dumb ultimatum rumor, I doubt there will be anyone else available that we would rather have on the team for 2017 and beyond.
-
Isn't this the exact type of player that good teams take chances on with later 1st? Granted, they usually have the luxury of not having as many holes to fill, but I feel like good teams will take him, let him heal up, and if he comes back 100% then they get one of the best players in the draft way later than he should have gone. ACL/MCL injuries have pretty good recovery rates, guys who re-injure them are the exception now, not the rule. This wasn't a Lattimore or Chubb type injury where the knee was completely destroyed.
As long as the Doc says his healing is progressing normally, I would still take him at 19.
Recent reports indicate that its a very serious injury. Seems likely that he won't play at all next year. With so many immediate needs on defense and very limited cap available for FA this year , I don't think that we can afford to use #19 like that.
-
It means the projection was wrong. When an independent source says to pass on Russell Wilson because he will be there the next round, so you pick TJ Graham then the projection was bad.
Thinking the projection was bad is purely retrospective thinking and therefore useless.
Picking Graham instead of Wilson was a bad decision, not a bad projection.
Rob Quinn: Rex might be one of the NFL's Best Head Coaches
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
It's almost as if "the media" is not a monolithic entity, and different journalists with different opinions wrote the columns you are comparing.