oldmanfan

Not to sidetrack bu Brandon was put in charge of PSE. He thus was not making player decisions. Harping on that is tired by now.

As for the poster to whom I referred, that Terry and Ralph are the same. That the 2001 Bills are the same as the 2019 Bills. That Brandon has anything to do with today’s team. And so on.

I have no problem being critical. But criticism should be based in some form of reality.

Well, Edmunds was defensive player of the week last game last season.

I mentioned that Brandon is no longer an employee because SoTier is like a dog with a chew toy trying to lump him in with the current regime, just like he lumps Ralph and Terry together for some bizarre reason. McD and Beane are setting the team up the way they see fit. We’ll see if they’re right.

It sure isn’t Winston

See Joe’s response above. I still would like Sammy. But Woods wanted to be back in Cali and Gilmore has a shot to play for Belichick.

You're an actuary. That should mean you understand statistics. What statistical test have you used to show that this data has any statistical validity? You do this every day, right? does your data mean anything from a statistical perspective?

Good. What then do you take away from the data mined by the OP? What is the question you would pose based on that? What would your null hypothesis be? What sample size would you need to disprove the null hypothesis? What statistical methodology would you use? Billsfan1972, same question. What exactly do you think the data set provided by the OP tells you, and based on what kind of statistical methodology? The thing is, if you look at the OP's stuff, which again I commend, he is largely talking about a QB having a single 300 yard game in a certain amount of time, starts, etc. As individuals well versed in stats as you claim, would you not agree that basing a statistical argument on a variable that includes an N = 1 is kind of dicey?

Serious question. What is your background in statistics? I have graduate level training in stats, so if you have something similar it would be interesting to have a real, true discussion about the use and misuse of statistics when looking at NFL data. The OP, again, should be commended for pulling the data out that he pulled. but even he said it should not be used in a predictive sense.

Let me correct this: the OP also includes in his data analysis Qbs that were drafted from 2017-2019 that have had at least one start. so, again while I commend the OP for his work, I review scientific manuscripts for publication, and if the OP submitted this data set for publication I'd have to reject it. Because of the sampling methodology. To compare Qbs with at least 32 starts or 6 years in the league with, say a 2019 draftee with a few starts, is an apples and oranges comparison. The OP acknowledges you can't really make projections base on the data he's extracted, and folks advocating that should pay heed.

Here we go with the profit crap yet again. There is a salary cap and the revenue from it is from TV. Brandon. Is. Not. An Employee. Of. The. Buffalo. Bills.

I just looked at the OP again, and noted something to keep in mind with all the back and forth going on. The OP defined his sample size and population: QBs with either 6 years in the league or 32 starts. So given that, perhaps some here who are all up in arms about Josh Allen not having a 300 yard day yet can explain why you are so crazed over this, since he has about 4.5 years and/or another season worth of starts before he would even fit into the data set put forth in the OP? Or to put it another way, if he has a 300 yard day this Sunday, will you just shut up for a while?

They are going to build through the draft and use free agency judiciously to fill holes. So when they didn't make some big midseason trade it is consistent with their philosophy. Only time they did that was with Benjamin. And yes, that was a poor decision. Not all decisions work out, and that goes for every team in the league.

I think in general. Successful organizations have cultures in place to drive their success. They also have cultures that drive that success. Is every process, every culture of successful organizations the same? No. I have seen more autocratic companies work well, I have seen more team oriented cultures where management actively seeks input (like where I work now) thrive. I have seen each work poorly. The key is that, regardless of the processes or culture in place, that the organization remain faithful to their processes, and that employees recognize expectations and buy in to meeting those expectations. Different employees work better or worse in different cultures. I, for one, could never work in a culture that is autocratic in nature. The Fortune 100 company you refer to I would not work well in if their culture was toxic; seems the same for you. In terms of the NFL, coaches have to know football of course, and know how to teach concepts, especially assistants. A HC, to me is a CEO, and a big part of what he needs to do is establish a cl=ulture that fosters winning. And as with business, that can take different forms. I think McD does so by constantly setting an expectation that those associated with the team, from coaches to water boys, have football as their focus, and seek continual improvement. I just looked at the OP again, and note something to keep in mind with all the back and forth going on. The OP defined his sample size and population: QBs with either 6 years in the league or 32 starts. So given that, perhaps some here who are all up in arms about Josh Allen not having a 300 yard day yet can explain why you are so crazed over this, since he has aa bout 4.y5 years and /or another season worth of starts before he would even fit into the data set put forth in the OP? Or to put it another way, if he has a 300 yard day this Sunday, will you just shut up for a while?

And the winning percentage was just one game over .500. So what does it mean? What relevance does it have?

I am going to be harsh here, and excuse for doing so, but when you say there are people here who seem Ok with losing you are being completely ridiculous. Just because people do not agree with your desire for more exciting games does not mean they are excited about losing. The only people on this board that would be OK with losing (and there are a few) are those who would rather see their team lose so they can say they were right about McD, or Allen, or Beane , or whomever. and that to me is just pathetic. As for "The Process", I have asked you (I think you) this many times and have never gotten a clear response: Name me successful organizations with our successful processes. Again, just because you don't like the way this team goes about its business does not mean it's bad. Your bias is shown in your last paragraph: you can't stand more defensive games. You don't like it. To which I can only say: too bad. Because right now the Bills are 5-2, and in position to get to the playoffs. And using their philosophy and process and whatever got them their first playoff berth in 17 years a couple years ago. You have a decision to make as a fan: whether you're more interested in style, or wins. I know which side of that I come down on, every time. I am a defense fan, but if the Bills were winning every game 42-38 with 500 yards passing a game, I'd be on board. Sadly, I think I know which side you come down on.

This brings back a ton of memories

Possibly. If he throws a stupid pick in the last drive you could, for example. The data the OP provided ins thought provoking, but from a purely statistical perspective it doesn't really tell you anything in terms of causation. You could have poor game planning, poor defense, poor QB play, poor WRs, and on and on. I think you are falling into a common statistical trap - confirmation bias. You have implied on this board that what excites you the most is offense, so you want to see the Bills pile up more yards. Now, that's not as bad as another poster, who has put out what to me are the two most mystifying posts I've seen in a long time; that he'd rather the team get over 300 yards passing vs. win, and that he thinks offense wins games but defense wins championships to somehow justify his views of 300 yard passing games. But back to your confirmation bias. Because your wish is what you term exciting games (personally I get excited by great defense, but again I digress), you look at the data on the 300 yard games listed here as justification that it somehow proves your point. It really doesn't though. It just reinforces your previously held bias. I'll say again, I'd love to see Josh break out and have a huge game. Who wouldn't? But I would want to see it in the context of a win. The Bills are 5-2 right now. That's pretty good. And they've done it with defense, decent running game, AND with a young QB that really comes to the forefront in the fourth quarter. Rather than make the stale argument that if he had been better the first three quarters he wouldn't need the heroics in the fourth, I would say this: 1. His fourth quarter performances are a positive sign that he can be the guy 2. The OC should look at his fourth quarter play and design things in the first 3 quarters to allow him to play like he does the fourth quarter (like Singleton, maybe?).

Well it’s interesting but the question is how meaningful it is.

Let's say you have a QB that throws one 300 yard game. That in statistical terms is a N (sample size) of one. From a statistical perspective you cannot base any conclusion on an N of one. As I said above, I would be delighted if Josh throws for 300 yards Sunday. But if they lose, then it means nothing other than a loss. It is whether it means anything in term's of a QB's relative ability or lack thereof. And passing yardage involves a whole host of variables other than the QB himself.

Well, not really. I can take this data and just as easily say it means that defense is the most important thing to winning, and that teams with poor pass defense are at higher risk for losing. Or I could say that teams with ineffective running games can't control the ball, and keep the other team's offense off the field, so the other team has more opportunities to pass. It could mean you had good matchups against a team's defense. And so on. I would be delighted if Josh threw for 301 yards Sunday afternoon. But only if that was done in the context of a win. It still boggles the mind that some here are more interested in passing yards than victories.

I actually commend the OP for his work. It's interesting data. It's just that it's hard to imply it means what some think it means, because of the complexity of all the variables that can affect whether QB X throws for a lot of yards. The NFL for years has been a copy cat league. The fad now is to have QBs that can throw it all over the filed, and somewhat justifiable given that DBs aren't allowed to play defense anymore, and that QBs are treated more carefully than endangered species. If I were a forward thinking NFL OC, I would go the opposite route. I would harken back to the old Bills of the AFL days, get two big backs like Cookie and Wray Carleton, and pound the ball at defenses who now are more designed for pass protection.

Folks now are criticizing this McD comment. Bottom line is this, not just for the Bills but for any professional sports team. You bring in new management, including a HC and GM, they are going to have their own philosophy about how to build a successful team. If they are successful, then they're heroes. IF they're not, they get fired. McD and Beane have been as clear as day about their philosophies. It's time for folks to realize that, and not be surprised when they stick to their philosophy.

Remarkable, isn't it? You know what would be funny? If Josh throws for 400 yards Sunday. I swear some would still come on here and say he still hasn't thrown specifically for 300