BullBuchanan

LB has to be the pick at rd1 after we failed to secure David or Wagner. We could use 2 of the next 3 for OL and the other for WR.

Of all the places to rob, banks are the most respectable.

That wasn't the only option. You are allowed to hire people from outside the building that you didn't previously work with in Philly or Carolina.

He's also a likely a top 5 all time NFL coach. The exception doesn't prove the rule.

Bills: Leslie Frazier is gone Me: WOOOOO!!!!! Bills: Sean McDermott will be calling the plays Me:

if he operates as our defacto #3 this year with Marlowe playing an emergency role or being a camp cut if we get additional depth, I'm all for it. Seems like he has promise and should be an upgrade over Johnson. If Hamlin does ever return, I don't think 2023 is likely.

Assuming we don't pick up a guy like Wagner, I'm taking Simpson. Wouldn't be mad at Campbell either.

Does he come with a wheelchair?

Kid is a monster. We should have been all over this for this price. Highly unlikely we get a better player at that cost int he draft.

So maybe we put him in on running plays and McGovern on passing plays?

So one might say he has "good Hodgkin's"?

I thought Hamlin played well as a backup safety. he was a hard hitter who was aggressive to the ball. He had problems in coverage and took some poor angles, but lots of players did. He may never be a Pro Bowl caliber player, injury aside, but I'm cool keeping him as a #3 if he can return to form. We do need to draft a replacement for Johnson though. That dude is awful.

Adding a truly elite RB like Henry would give a whole new dynamic to this offense. If we want to win a super bowl I think it has to involve the game being less dependent on Allen, and a more balanced scheme that featured an incredibly strong running game with a QB like Allen could be what's needed to put us over the top. Said differently, put Allen on the Titans 3 years ago and I think they win the Super Bowl easily. However, that all assumes we'd change the offense to utilize Henry, and this staff has given me no indication that they'll build scheme around talent. They're old school, "this is my scheme" guys, so to that end I think either Ekeler or Robinson would be the better fit if they wanted to target a #1.

I've already explained all of this in the thread already and I know you're an intellectually dishonest person from your threads here, so I'm not going to waste my time debating you on this. You don't want to be proven wrong, you just want to stir controversy 20 pages into a thread and show us all how smart you think you are. I will address one minor point though: "As for the first - if PFF's hypothesis isn't that a player's past performance is reflective of what they're capable of contributing and predictive of their future results, what exact purpose do you believe their grades serve? For what purpose do you believe they are marketing them?" They serve to measure a player's past performance as every sports statistic in the history of sports has done. It's impossible to grade a player's future performance conclusively as the human being behind the player is a massive variable that isn't included int he model. The grades they generate are a data point for future hypothesis. A coach or GM could look at a player's score against certain competition and think that if the player was strong against teams featuring an 'X' type of team and they don't fall off, they could provide Y increase in value over Z player currently on the team. They could use it to identify players are inconsistent but could possibly take the next step with coaching, separate players who apparently had good seasons due to stats from those who actually made big plays, etc. Just because the data doesn't indicate future results from past performance doesn't mean human beings don't include it in their evaluation. it's also not the end all-be all. A pff analysis could be one of a dozen or more data points in a player evaluation. So their method isn't scientific because they don't give you their IP? Their model is their entire business. Privately held companies that operate in a scientific field typically aren't in the habit of discloses the all of the details of the algorithms that you would need to reproduce their work. In my business my companies have observed our customers and potential customers, formed hypothesis, run experiments and analyzed the results of those test to form conclusions and in not one of those companies have we ever shared our methodology in a reproducible way with the general public. The isn't a peer reviewed paper of a scientific discovery. Do you understand the difference?

that's not what a CSAT does. Keep showing your ass though.

If you replace Allen with a league average qb, say Daniel Jones - I think we're a bottom half team

The Chiefs won the Super Bowl... The Bills aren't even in the same tier as those two teams in the SB last year. I don't think we're int he same tier as the top 4 teams.

Chiefs, Eagles, 49ers, Bengals I didn't say the Bills were run of the mill though. I said, what has Beane done this offseason that wasn't run of the mill? The bills had tons of cap room, it just had to be unearthed through restructures. None of that takes a genius. It's just operational business moves that any GM would have done and was likely the plan when the original deals were signed.

Those are my two picks. Simpson was the guy to me if we kept the same defense. He has the athelticism to replace Edmunds. If we change scheme a bit with Frazier gone, maybe there could be a good fit for Campbell.

That's not really impressive. All teams do that.

Omg, so this whole time you were hung up because you didn't think it was possible to apply a scientific analysis to subjective interpretations? There are whole industries that do just that - Net Promoter Scores and Customer Satisfaction Scores are just that, except they don't come with grading rubrics or extensive training for the input data. In the case of PFF, the grader is grading to the rubric. The that all of the grades go through a second set of hands on a play by play is following a peer review model. If you have a system set up like that, you should be getting similar results across personnel.

Too bad we didn't get a chance to sign Keenan Allen. Then we could have traded for Josh Allen from the Jags.

What part of what he's done here isn't run of the mill? For me to be impressed he'd have to show me something that someone else couldn't do or something someone else didn't know. He paid a lot of money so far to two players without super impressive resumes, including a receiver with 793 career yards and 4 touchdowns over 4 seasons.

You can apply science and scientific methodology to anything.

In order for that to be true, you would need to have a hypothesis that past performance is indicative of future results. I'm not about to make that claim - are you? Btw, I posted their model methodology. Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal.