oldmanfan

It's been nice to see the Bills HC and GM in synchrony. They have a plan and thus far they have been faithful to carrying out their plan. They dumped players they did not feel met what they wanted (and for the most part seemed like they made the right calls), they cleared cap space to sign guys and to give them financial flexibility to keep some of their younger guys, they maneuvered to get what they hope are their franchise QB and MLB, and they have draft picks they can use to get what they hope are their starts going forward. Of course we will have to see how things go forward, but it is refreshing to see a plan being executed in as competent a manner as we've seen thus far. As for the Sabres, Botterill is two years in, and it seems like his plan is slower in progression. When he came in he realized that his predecessor had not paid attention to stocking the organization with young talent, and from what I can see the farm teams have improved so he has a potential pipeline for the Sabres. For example, the young goalie from Finland may be your franchise goalie next year or the year after. His choice of HC can certainly be questioned, but then you have the age old question of whether it's the coach or the players. From what I can see from the limited games I've seen, maybe both but more the players. I can't ever remember a team so reluctant to hit people; every time I watch a game the opposition sets up camp in front of our net and we do nothing. If I'm Botterill I dump guys, get guys in with heart and a willingness to be tough, tell Eichel he needs to be strong as the captain and go forward. Housely can stay or go; not sure either choice is better or worse. But Botterill has to figure out which young players are his core, and which ones aren't worth the effort. The owners? People claim they don't know how to run a professional sports team, but how many owners really do? where Terry messed up is with his earlier hires like Rex, Tim Murray, etc. Maybe more on the hockey side because he's so sentimental about the Sabres. But I think he's seeing that changing things around so much only puts you farther away from your goal. He's hired two young GMs that each came from solid backgrounds; give them the opportunity to build things correctly and stay out of their way as the owner.

Point of information, but they can open the roof here in Indy.

Does he have a top assistant that can take over, like he did for Hurley?

Let's bring in a czar. Remember when everyone clamored for them to bring in Coughlin as the czar? That worked out great for the Jags. Or you could let the young GMs, both of whom trained in successful organizations, actually do their jobs.

If they fire a regime that has a 9-7 record then the team and its fans don't deserve a winner. Constantly trying to reinvent the wheel gets you nowhere.

I think terry's comments say it all. He realizes you can't keep reinventing the wheel every couple years. McD and Beane have a plan, they're sticking to it, and hopefully it gives sustained results. As for the Sabres, Botterill is I think like Beane, he has a plan and will go forth and execute. I hope part of that plan is to get some guys on the team that actually aren't afraid of hitting a guy. The limited number of games I get to see, it's ridiculous how many opposing players sit right in front of the goal and aren't touched.

Lower round to compete with Murphy.

They rotate guys to keep them fresh. I think Star is the only 3 on the roster. I am not saying he couldn't be better, only that: 1. He is not the train wreck so many are insinuating, and 2. The coaches seemed happy with his play. The coaches are a better arbiter of what constitutes that vs. a bunch of guys on a message board.

Like dealing with a child. Instead of discussion takes his ball and runs home. To answer your question about presenting data, for the third time now data has been presented which you ignore. My role here is like when I review papers for professional journals; I reject your arguments because they are based on a poor interpretation of data and a confirmation bias.

Before deciding on the worth of Star it would be nice to know what the coaches think. I seem to recall McD being happy with Star's play. He may be doing a non-flashy job that doesn't generate a lot of numbers.

Appreciate the dialog.

Well, it gets back to variables, which you seem determined to ignore. Let's take his sack numbers. What variables could affect that? Well it could be his physical play declined. It could be the coaches asked him to do different things like occupy blockers vs. rush. It could be that players around him were weaker and thus he got doubled more on pass plays. It could be he did not play on as many passing downs as the couple years before. And so on. Given your background you should know this. You should also know the meaning of confirmation bias. I review a lot of manuscripts for publication, and most get rejected for experimental design flaws, a major one being confirmation bias. My reading of your posts suggest you have confirmation bias; you have a negative view of team coaching and management and thus look for data to support that. Which is why I got on you about your holistic and objective comment; I'm not convinced you are either. I have no problem with offering opinions; it's what this place is for. I do object to people misusing data and statistics. A claim was made that snap counts went down; they didn't. I and others pointed that out. It does not mean all his others points are invalid. But when you claim to be objective and then aren't it clouds one's interpretation of other comments. And it's not an ad hominem attack. I think that phrase is much overused.

I'm surprised you have that experience given some of the things you've said. Surely you understand the significance of variables when comparing data sets, right? But you don't acknowlege that in your posts. Football is inherently a multivariate equation. That is why I generally don't get tied up in the weeds when people quote stats; I find the analyses overly simplistic. I try to point this out when people erroneously use stats here. I unfortunately do not have the time to do exhaustive data analysis of the type to do justice to some of the debates. Now, you claim I don't provide data. I don't for the reasons above, plus when someone like Thurman privdes them to refute your point I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. You claimed Star's snaps went down; his data shows they did not. You made a claim, you were wrong. Let's continue to dialog. Given our expertise and backgrounds we could provide an educational effort to the group.

Let's hope he's right

I think the Bills were interested in that Brown had a reputation of being a hard worker that would have fit their model. Given this stuff now they must be glad they dodged that bullet

The stats thrown around so much aren't treated in in a proper statistical way. People don't consider variables as I explained to you in another thread. Oh, and Thurman gave you data. I saw no reason to cite the exact same data since it was already presented and adequately rebutted your holistic and objective claptrap. by the way, I thought I was being ignored?

I know this might be a little complex for you, but when you have data sets and you want to compare you have to examine variables than can affect the comparison. So first show me your data sets. Then tell me about the variables that can affect them. One to be fair would be age of the back. Another would be quality if the offensive line. Another would be quality of the rushing defenses his teams played against. And so on. Gore had a good year last year, his performance this year will depend on him plus our O line, play calls, and such. Serious question for you: what is your background is statistics? I have graduate training in it and use stats in my job every day. If you have statistical training then you should know the influence of variables on stats. If not, you are falling into the trap many do that don't understand stats; they blindly look at numbers without understanding what affects them.

Gore averaged over 4 yards a carry last year. That pesky data again.

You claim statistical expertise that you don't possess.

This is dumb. The data you've showed here is indecipherable vs. what Thurman has shown. You claimed his snap counts went down. They didn't. Then when you get caught on that you switch to things like numbers like sacks. You do 'tiniest what Frazier and McD asked him to do in the context of their D. He presumably ate up double teams to free up other guys. So when people show you're wrong you put them on ignore? Wow. Pretty holistic and objective. The reality is you claim some mythical statistical expertise you don't have.

Watch them play. Not saying Murphy won't be on the roster but Gore is a HOFer with a lot left in the tank.

I admire the optimism, as I like to also look on the bright side, but somewhat premature. The O line should be improved but has to gel. Josh and Edmunds have to continue improvement. Receivers are improved but still not overwhelming.

Hope Ivory lands in a good spot. He was a dependable second back. Doing it now let's him hook on elsewhere before camp.

Right. Sure.

Correct. The process is about having guys dedicated to football and constantly working to improve. As much of a head case as is AB no one ever questioned his work ethic until his dust up with Big Ben. I suspect they would have needed to be as sure as they could be that wouldn't happen again before they would have signed him.