AKC

Mo Sanu was catching over 83% of passes thrown his direction and gaining 7.45 yards per target with Ryan throwing him the ball the first 7 games of the season. With Tommie Boy his numbers fell to a 51.9% catch rate and only 4.19 yards per target. It's difficult for me to blame that plunge over the falls on the receiver.

Had a year in Houston back in the Oiler days. While the Astrodome was a piss-poor sports theater they had competitive teams and all the fame rituals that we associate with regional stars applied. No one bigger than Earl Campbell who kept asking me to play racquetball with him- I had never played it in my life and his thighs were bigger around than my chest so I figured that was a bad call. Tough bringing in another franchise when you had a loved one preceding it. I had some great times with Earl and his FB Tim Wilson. We finish the Texans season tomorrow, not the Oilers!

I so appreciate you using words that come easy for your kind! I fixed the balance for you since math is clearly not your strength! When we add in Gilmore* grabbing Parker's collar as Parker launches for another of the passes we have- by your own math- 5 of the passes your disappointing overpriced FA had no chance at the ball at all because he just doesn't have those kind of ball skills against good receivers. The other passes you don't reference, so you are clearly conceding the fact that Gilmore* wasn't anywhere near an "INT opp". So I'll wait (forever!) for you to provide a list of : Passes to Parker on 29DEC2019 that Clutch Gilmore* would in your words "get picked Or inc because they are under thrown or to far" (nice English skills too Baked Bean!) I'll wait for your list. Looking forward to total number of tosses to Parker that would “3 out of 4" times normally have been picked off! As for your Boston Love, I was at Schaefer Stadium in 1981 and I met all 12 Patriots fans who attended the game. Maybe you know Duncan or Red? Maybe Muffy? FYI there were at least 500 Bills fans! Your fan base is one of the weakest in the league and will recoil to its filthy, tiny, base of apologist cheating faeces, if my watch is correct, in about 2 weeks. That will end up "Beating" in real time the arraignment of your disgusting owner for paying for sex with ugly ancient nail trimmers. Shower time!

That's simply nonsense. Since you're a Pats* fan you probably haven't been watching football for long but no life-long fan of the game watching the domination of Parker over Gilmore* yesterday would suggest anything so silly and so provably false. Parker whips on Gilmore all day long 29 Dec 2019 The funniest thing is that "Clutch" Gilmore*, the nickname he earned from clutching receivers jerseys, really only "stops" one pass yesterday. Its on a 3rd and 5. And how does he "make the play"? He grabs Parker's collar and literally pulls him down away from the ball! The announcers didn't catch it but anyone can see from the clip there's no way Parker's body reverses course after he leaps without the "assist" from Grabby Gilmore*! Gilmore*'s a decent CB coached up to grab jerseys and accept that the zebra's won't throw a flag his way more than once or at most twice a game. Parker did a fine job keeping Gilmore* from clutching him early in his routes and except that outrageous missed PI on the 3rd down play Parker's numbers against Gilmore* were 7 catches on 8 targets. And on the other incomplete pass that looks from the network film like it sailed over Parker's head I'm willing to bet that once we see the film from the other side of the field we'll all be able to clearly see Clutch with a handful of Parker's jersey keeping him from blowing past Gilmore*. So take your laughable "Gilmore was there..." (He was nowhere near any but two or arguably three of the balls to Parker) and "half of those get picked" (you can't pick off anything if you're nowhere near the ball) and focus on some sport that people from New England have watched for generations and might know something about. Hockey or Basketball would be good places to start- everyone knows no one born near Boston knows anything about Baseball!

Something else Baldinger could have added is that after forcing the checkdown Oliver turns downfield to improve his angle and force a new perimeter for the receiver. He doesn’t lose his discpline and go straight to the ball but instead helps to secure a best case/more limited field for our D on the RAC.

Dave Mondillo 18 Year Long Employee of Patriots*/Kraft Mondillo, the "suspended" (or maybe not) producer of the signal stealing video in Cleveland, is not an independent contractor. In fact, contrary to the statements made by Belichick and the Pats* he has been the producer of Belichick's weekly segment working directly with him. Mondillo according to this source is one of the voices in the clip Glazer released. It does not appear there is any even provable lie that Belichick and the Pats* don't think they can feed the media. The damage done by this organization to good coaches in football across the country who teach integrity and respect of the rules is massive. The narrative pushed by the Pats* that "everyone does it" is a libel on every decent coach at every level of the game who teach honest play. It is fitting that Belichick's press conference included his snark about how they "don't push it as far as they used to". Someone might want to remind him that he and his team have been penalized and fined historic amounts for the way they "pushed it", or in other words cheated and corrupted the game of football.

https://nypost.com/2019/12/09/security-had-to-save-brittany-matthews-patrick-mahomes-girlfriend-from-patriots-fans/ Decades of empty stadiums following the declaration of Rosie Ruiz that "Boston doesn't care how you win". Nice job Boston!

With a high snap yesterday that "pass" was up in McKenzie's faceguard. Since we pull the OC on those a defender sitting on the play could fire through the A gaps and knock the ball up for grabs. We seem to have a little more air on our exchange than I see with KC for instance. Probably be a good idea to start working to reduce the arc on that since it's clearly an ongoing weapon and stage setter for other plays.

Although important elements of it are in development, methinks our TE corps may become very good as the season progresses. I will make sure that my Happy Hour set this afternoon includes a Yuengling product! You don't go out looking for a job dressed like that, do ya? On a weekday?

I figure if Simon can get far enough away from the oxygen tank to dust off his PS2 keyboard I can find a little time to chime in! Good to see you here too- KTDog told me you'd had some time down and I'm very happy to know you're on your feet. GG must be the most durable among us- he doesn't seem to get too frustrated with the trollhood and poorly mannered fans personally disparaging our team! Things are great out in my land- far away from the crowds and spending almost every day taking in the wonders of California's Central Coast after 35 years in SoCal. A long strange trip starting in Wellsville way back before our Bills were born!

Alternatively the calculation could have been that #1 having Singletary on the roster was going to limit McCoys touches and #2 they seem to be building some goodwill as a player friendly organization and letting Shady find a spot more ideal for him would be consistent with that reputation. I haven’t seen a single negative thing from him about his time in Buff, leading me to believe Beane managed that very well. Bottom line is money could have been a lesser factor to them. I’m not sure Shady would have been content waiting for the rookie to be limited by injury or performance issues.

Thanks for reading the whole post. It's not an excuse for anyone but instead a recognition that the dice roll the coaching staff took in a year when we had more OL work than maybe anyone in the game was to exacerbate that by creating some playing field for all the QBs to play with both of the OC candidates and other OLine combinations. In years past there would have been more time to make something like that work but the awful CBA currently in place doesn't even give stable teams much time to sort out OL changes. The owners and Players Association should be moving to backtrack on the practice limits in some manner in the interest of product quality including decreasing injuries and allowing players who want to work more with their team and coaches to do so, not to mention starting seasons with better overall OL play so we don't end up with 39 INTs thrown as we did this year.

You better take another look..... I see the silver lining for this season that even with the OL talent drop which is really not in dispute, the other elements re: practice time and the decision to go ahead with a QB competition when it was NOT contemporarily wise mean A) the line should show some visible steps in improvement right away and B) Allen got to play with the guys he will lead onto the field Sunday and had he been left out of the competition that would not be the case.

The Effect: McDermott and his staff took the 2018 preseason and juggled multiple QB/OC/OL combos in an attempt to create an environment where all 3 QBs would get some balanced shot at showing their own readiness. The result entering the regular season was that there is no cohesion along our OLine. In today’s NFL many teams do limited experimentation with their #1 OL during the preseason, trying to give some time to work in a new FA or younger player but wholesale change is rare. We just didn’t have the luxury with the loss of two of our top 3 starters and the strategy of evaluating the auditioning Linemen including most importantly at OC. The Bodine/Groy switches all preseason will remain for at least few more games the root cause of flying flags on offense. The 2018 Bills OL is a mix of moving parts and with our questions at QB overriding cohesion at OL we were left entering the regular season opener at about the quality of OLine cohesion most teams were at entering their preseason game 1. The Cause: The current CBA has limited the time and intensity of practice and player/coach time to a degree that hurts some units more than others. OLine is arguably the most affected by the limits agreed to in the CBA since there are 5-7 parts (including TEs) that need to work together in some ways like a choreographed dance troupe. The preseason limits on contact and practice days are crippling for teams trying to repair major changes in their OLine from one season to another. Our QB Competition and line juggling to play a large part in our situation this year, but the CBA practice limits hurt everybody on both sides of the CBA and damage the quality of the product on the field for every team in the league. The Cure: The League and the NFL Players Union pick their wins and losses in the CBA for their respective sides- on the one side the owners and the other side the players. Both sides make some dubious choices- for instance the owners feel those 4 preseason games are a big win. The Players Union pitches the limited practice to the players as a win, but it’s really no win for any but some star players and even then mostly those in skill position roles. The much larger body of players, and especially those on units like the OL, would be exceedingly better off if they had more time with their coaches and unit teammates. It’s probably safe to assume most of those fighting for line spots would much rather have added opportunity to practice yet that opportunity is taken away by a stupid concession that owners make to the Players Union in the CBA. The fix seems simple- allow players to individually negotiate any practice limits in their own contracts instead of having them decided by the NFL and the Players Union in the CBA. Sure the marquis RBs and WRs would seek less practice time but most of the NFL Hoi Polloi would surely join all the serious QBs in seeking as much time as possible with their teams and units. Now that I’ve solved that problem I want to mention Big Bob asked me if I’d stop by here since he’ll be at Hammer’s Sunday for the TBD Opener Tailgate for the first time in a long time. You all be gentle with the Big Guy, he got awful soft during his “stay” out here on the West Coast ? I should also mention the upside if it's not obvious- as a result of the decision to try to offer a QB competition Josh Allen got better reps this preseason than he otherwise might have. God luck Sunday kid!

King is a perfect media guy- he loves the guys with the ball. That guarantess his position with the majority of fans, but I have to assume most teams simply laugh if they are forced for some reason to read his tripe. I won't be surprised if Sean Peyton gets more than the occasional chuckle at King's expense this coming season. 19,000 posts and every one you've ever made about football has been a positive contribution to TSW. Continue on my friend- the reason some of us take the limited casual internet time we have to come here in the face of increasing spam is because of posters like you and DMcBride. Like I had to tell you two that.

And I'll continue to point out that the best teams use higher draft equity on DTs than the Bills. The next question becomes- why are you really trying to publicly argue that the football fact I agree with (the best teams use a higher amount of top draft equity on DTs than the Bills) in any wildly grasping way suggests that "any DT taken in the first round" is a the strategy used by the best teams? Weasels probably get a bad rap when it comes to those who would misrepresent something over an over- hoping that by lying again and again, someone who wasn't paying too much attention might buy into it. At this point I'd thought it had become very clear who was't intelligent enough to see the difference between the position I've always had above and the idiot's position a couple of you spammers have tried to frame it into to. I was thinking your only problem was that you weren't honest enough to admit to the framing attempts, but perhaps I instead simply overestimated your intellect.

I will commend you that unlike some of the other spammers on their way to their 10Kth post, you're willing to admit here that the reality turned out to be exactly what I suggested in the period leading to the 2008 draft- smart teams in 2008 weren't going to be thinking about taking a WR at the top of the draft. The problem with some of the other WR fans is that while like you they couldn't at accept the evidence being offered before the draft, unlike you they are still fighting the reality of the draft as it played out. As far as any of the spammers who live in their denial to this day about playing up WR while decrying any evidence that it wasn't desirable for us as a team, you can do better than to buy into misrepresentations and outright lies. I have made the offer to all the spammer to show a single post in which I suggested that selecting "any DT" was somehow a logical or desirable draft strategy. Of course not a single spammer has produced any such nonsense. So as you accrue the big post total you're headed for, you get to decide. Do you jump into promoting falsehoods against those of us who come here to actually talk about football, or do you keep some integrity between your content and the nonsense spewed out by the few who clearly to spend a majority of their waking hours becoming an overriding presence on internet message boards?

The patterns of you spam posters is pretty clearly documented- fear what contradicts your own tiny little whiffs of understanding of football, and misrepresent any person's whose opinions you fear. Now feel free you get back to another few thousand meaningless posts with no original throughts of any kind, and keep on telling us like you are above about how the fact that not a single team in the football agreed with you idiots about taking a WR in round one "doesn't mean the talent at the position wasn't strong". No matter the evidence, no matter the facts, just keep on spam driveling because you and the other spam drivelers actual goal appears to simply be reaching 10,000 meaningless posts before someone eles beats you to it. Good luck in your endeavor.

Thank God the team finally appears to be distacning their strategies from that of the least intelligent of our fans. The screaming mimis like WRamius who demanded we had draft a WR at 11 in 2008 to avoid the inevitable first round run on WRs are so threatened by being expsoed for the football ninnies they really are that they'll spend hours and hours spamming false representations of the facts about the Bill's long-term failure in emulating the better teams in their draft philosophy. Fans who understand the larger concepts of personnel recognize that one of the things that has led to our struggles has been passing on the Harris/Wilfork/Ngatas in favor of WRs and RBs in too many cases. The WR crowd hates to admit it so they try to spin the facts in some way to hide their failed grasp of drafting strategy, but no matter how many ways they try to hide their postions, the facts are the facts: Here's a great example of the type of shame they're trying to hide: WRamius on Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WR were taken in the first round "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st" WRamius on Apr. 23, 2008 "the Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around." WRamius on picking a WR at #11: Apr 24th, 2008= 2 days before NO WRs were taken in the first round, proving the draft weak at WR in the minds of every NFL team needing WRs: "Just because there is no clear cut #1 does NOT mean that the draft is WR weak. There are quite a handful of WRs that will go in the 1st" Apr 24 WRamius on why the Bill's must draft a WR with the 11th pick- "The Bills may have WRs rated higher than the "experts" do, and there might not be much to choose from when our 2nd round pick comes around." "Picking someone at #11 when the dumbass "experts" say they shouldnt go until 17-18 isnt a "reach" WRamius again on drafting a WR at 11: "If we draft a WR at #11, we are NOT doomed to go 4-12, and it isnt the end of the world. It will be an upgrade to the offense." I'd like to thanks Scott for providing us with the Ignore User Feature a way to take spamming D-bags out of the conversation here and in doing so improve the football discussion dramatically.

I always figured it was the coaching that caused the decline in A Train's production. Probably tools around in a little American car on top of it.

It's rumored he had no idea he ran into TE, but he's not talking to reporters about it. His lawyer has scheduled a press conference to follow the Indy game on Sunday.

You're confusing "value" of draft picks (which is a different and subjective measure) with position of picks, which is totally objective. If we were seeking to determine values of picks you would be correct- if we wanted to say pick #4 was "this much" more valuable than pick #20, you'd probably want to include the whole draft. But the necessity in this case is to establish a simple and accurate positional value of the first 64 picks, with the notice given in the original post that any picks awarded at the end of the second round would be given the same positonal value. The study is to establish the equity teams use in the first two rounds by position, so what is required is a quantification of the actual position of the picks. For accuracy, the best way to do this is with an exact and equal gradient between picks. With 64 picks the logical ways to do that are to call them 64-1 or 1-1/64th. This provides exactly what I proposed, an exact quantification of the picks in the first two rounds. This lets you go on to examine and compare equity of the selections between teams in the first two rounds. On the issue of a "draft pick value" study, and realizing under any case that would be subjective, the first link you gave has pretty wild deviations with no explanation in it for the major value difference seemingly at random throughout their chart. I'm sure you can find something far more logical in assigning some average value increases across the body of the whole NFL draft if that's information you're looking for. You probably want to start with studies that provide details of their methodology, something I didn't see with that first link.

Let’s see if I can help you to understand major errors you’re making. The biggest one is ignoring the equity portion of the equation. I’m looking at the totality of each team’s available draft equity and how it’s being used. On the other hand you’ve made the mistake of ignoring equity and instead assuming a Giant’s #25 pick at DT is the same as a Buffalo Bill’s pick of a DT at #26. The problem is that the best teams just don’t get the same number of those high picks as bad teams like the Bills, and therefore the “equity” formula I chose allows a look at the value the best teams place at positions versus our team, something you can’t see using your assumption that ignores the spend/buy equity that is clearly defined in mine. If you want that in simpler terms, the best teams get less shots at the top of the draft than the poor teams. My study shows how the best teams spend as an overall percentage of their budget, yours simply shows what they spend with no reference point. You can’t reach any comparative results in your static system, whereas mine offers a chance to look into the way the war rooms of the best teams see the draft positionally. Clearly this is not for simpletons- we’ve already seen a few of them leave the planet earth over this because a fairly simple application of sound mathematics is so far over their heads. But if you’d like to consider how you can gain some insight into the differences between the Bills and the best teams, there’s a chance here if you can get past some of the misconceptions you’re still hung up on.

The methodology explains that the first two rounds are used to represent the "Top of the Draft". While one might argue that three rounds would be better, or the first 50 picks, the study was framed as the "top of the draft" and the use of rounds one and two still seems to reasonably represent that. If your point is that I could have instead titled it "Positional Drafting Trends in the First Two Rounds of the Draft", I'd agree that it would help avoid any confusion among readers about what the "Top of the Draft" meant. Your use of the word "arbitrary" here seems curious to me. I don't see anything arbitrary about the quantification as I established it. The actual value of each pick is 1/64 more or less than the pick before or after- for instance, pick #1 in the draft is worth 64/64s, or 1. The next pick is worth 63/64ths, and the last pick in round 2 is worth 1/64th. Instead of being arbitrary, the gradient is exact going up or down the draft board. In the first value chart you suggest, the quantification used does appear to be arbitrary. Take a look at picks 20-23. They value pick 23 at 760, pick 22 at 780 and pick 21 at 800. In their quantification, there's a total difference in "value" between picks 23 and 21 of "40" on their value chart. Now look at pick 20- they list it at 850. Their "value" jump between the 21st and 23rds picks is less overall than the value jump just between picks 21 and 20. And on their board, there are many instances of the same types of hops. I don't see that they've offered their methodology anywhere to explain such dramatic swings in the values between draft picks, and short of some explanation along those lines I can't find their arbitrary type of quantification superior in any way to the exact gradient as I've proposed it. If I'm missing something there, I'm happy to take another look at it. Let me know if you see something I don't. You're 100% correct. My study in no way studies success or failure of draft picks, nor does it in any way claim to. I very clearly identified and limited the study to the top of the draft trends positionally between the best teams versus the Bills. Success and failure are totally subjective studies, whereas by staying with the objective theme of positional draft trends, there can be no dispute about the existence of the trends. Even if we take the more arbitrary value system you proposed and applied it, the same trends will exist, simply in slightly varied overall percentages. As I also point out in the original post, identifying the trends doesn't mean these are conscious strategies or policies of NFL teams. That's up for the reveiwer to consider. I learned something from the look at how good teams end up using their top picks- but that clearly doesn't mean everyone else will. If you get something from it that's great, or if you feel you can improve on it in some way I'd be very interested to see your study.