Shaw66

Thanks. We've all gotten so into statistics, and there's all this hype about analytics, and I'm sure the right stats and the right analytics are valuable tools within organizations. We, and I include myself, see some stat that some geek somewhere cooked up, and we tend to ascribe a lot more meaning to the stat than it deserves. In fact, sometimes there's no meaning to it all. And while I'm on the subject, what really bugs me is when the announcers tell us that if Smith throws at least two touchdown passes in today's game, he will become the first QB in the history of the league to have gotten at least X completions, Y yards, and Z touchdowns before reaching age 24. They say as though it's a record some keeps, like you can look up the ages of all players at the time they hit X, Y, Z. That's not a record. And it's also more or less meaningless, because although Smith did that, Jones was the QB in history to A rushing touchdowns, B wins, with a passer rating C before age 25. I mean, who cares? They just go to all the stat lists and come up with some combination of stats that make the guy look good. I think the emphasis on stats leads us to misperceive what actually drives success in the league. There's a lot of truth when someone ways the only stats that matter are Ws and points. Everything else is fun to talk about, but a lot of it doesn't correlate with success.

Interesting comment. I've often said that a related subject - play calling - is much less important than fans make of it. I mean, of course there's occasionally a really stupid call, just like there's occasionally a really stupid decision to go for it or not. But most of the time, the decision is reasonably justifiable - there may be arguments either way, but it one decision or the other isn't the obvious choice. It's only in retrospect that a commentator says it was a great play call (because it worked) or a fan says it was a stupid call by his coach (because it didn't). The fact is that plays work or don't work for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of situations, and the measurement of whether play calling is effective or ineffective is extremely difficult, if not impossible. So too, "going for it." Whether to go for it is one decision of hundreds, maybe thousands, that coaches make during a game. Whether going for it works is dependent on all kinds of factors, not simply whether it was a good decision or not. So, it isn't surprising that someone's measure of aggressiveness in deciding whether to go for it does not correlate with winning. Winning is the culmination of weeks and months of preparation, game plan design and implementation, coaching, execution, weather, bad calls, all sorts of things. Attempts at statistical analysis of someone's decision making in this respect are pretty meaningless. Now, that's not to say that analytics doesn't have a role. It IS knowable whether a coach going for it is consistent with what analytics suggest. That comparison may be meaningful, but even that has its flaws. After all, Billy Beane's analytics changed over time, as do the analytics of all coaches. The game evolves, and what worked two seasons ago doesn't work now.

I agree with this, but I also think the fans think there's more of a need at #2 corner than McBeane think. First, the opponents last season weren't attacking Wallace like he was a liability. Teams couldn't go after him repeatedly and have success. They threw to his side more than White's side, I suppose, but that's because of how good White is, not because Wallace is a liability. Second, I think Wallace plays the total position the way McDermott wants, including run support and the complex zone and zone/man schemes McDermott prefers. I don't think it's easy to find someone who plays the total position a lot better, except for players who are generally too pricey - free agents or top-of-the-draft rookies. As long as White is on the other side, I think the Bills will be satisfied with a solid, if not spectacular performer. If a stud corner falls to them in the first round of the draft, the Bills will take him with great pleasure, but I don't think the Bills think they have a need or a hole there.

Thanks for the compliment, I don't think I'm all that knowledgeable. For example, it may be the case that McDermott would tell us, if he were speaking frankly, that Edmunds screwed up a lot in pass coverage last season. Mostly what I do is try to infer things from what McBeane do and say. I watch them, ask myself why they'd be doing or not doing things (like exercising the option on Edmunds, or not chasing a running back other than Breida), and try to draw conclusions. Following that approach, I conclude that they are satisfied with the job Edmunds is doing, because (1) the Bills exercised the option and (2) the Bills seem to be doing absolutely nothing to create serious competition for the job. I combine that with plays from the championship game where Mahomes clearly was reading Edmunds, and I conclude that the problem people think they see is in the scheme, not the player. Maybe I'm wrong.

It's strictly wait and see. It's very simple. McDermott is all about competition, and the best 53, from his point of view, will make it. I've written about the several reasons, from my point of view, why he seems unlikely to make it. On the other "extreme" is the fact that guy has been an extremely successful ball carrier in a very similar sport, breaking tackles, changing direction, running away from tacklers. NFL teams can always use guys with those skills. What none of us knows is how well he has learned all the little things he needs to know, the little things plenty of us have been talking about here. In other words, it may be fun to talk about, and some of us on one side or the other will turn out to be correct, but the outcome simply isn't knowable to us. If you were Kim Pegula and asked McDermott today, he'd tell you the truth, which might be that he sees no chance, he sees a small chance, or they're going to work really hard to get him up to speed because they think he's an impact player. McDermott DOES have an opinion. It's just that we don't know what it is, and he won't tell us.

I grew up in Buffalo in the 50s. In those days vegetarian was a hot dog without chili. I'd say go to Ted's.

Shoulda said he doesn't have to pass block.

We haven't forgotten. And we're grateful.

You keep saying this, and it's stupid, to be frank. If he can't pass block and you put him in on first down, the defense knows that you aren't going to run 1/3 to 1/4 of your playbook. That's a big advantage for the defense. McKenzie can run all the pass routes. He doesn't have to block. And he returns punts.

Singletary lines up wide. You can argue all you want. The fact is that you don't play on offense or on defense unless you do essentially all the things that the position asks of you. That's why rookies rarely start from day one, even rookies who HAVE played four years of high school and four or five years of college. They don't because they can't do everything they need to be able to do, and the opponent quickly figures that out. They're called one-trick ponies for a reason, and there's a reason one-trick ponies don't play in the league. Ask CJ Spiller. Spiller couldn't do everything NFL coaches asked him to do, and he played in a national powerhouse program in college. It simply isn't easy to learn to do all the things that running backs are supposed to do.

The problem is that if he can't block, or he can't run all the receiving routes, it becomes very clear to the rest of the league very quickly. Then he's something of a liability on the field, because the defense knows there's only a limited number of ways the Bills get him the ball, and the rest of the time he's a decoy. That's a big advantage for the defense, and it's a waste of a roster spot just to have a threat like that on the field for 3-4 plays a game. He MUST be able to play the position, all aspects of the position, or he MUST be able to be the kick returner. Or both. It's the only way he can make the 53.

They're not going to release him. He doesn't cost the Bills a roster spot, so there's no reason not to keep him and see what happens. What might happen is that at the end of preseason, when he doesn't make the 53, he could leave the Bills if he can find a team that WILL put him on their roster. That, too, seems unlikely, so the Bills will probably have him for another season as just an extra player hanging around. Maybe next season he makes. People who are negative about him need to recognize, however, that we've seen the guy touch the ball twice, once for a long touchdown and once for a long run from scrimmage. In both cases, he showed speed, change of direction, recognition, balance, and some strength. On the pass play, he made a nice catch. Now, on Friday, he makes a play for a touchdown in the rookie mini-camp. The guy has talent.

We had this conversation a few weeks ago. There's nothing much to talk about, so here's another chance for people. Personally, I'd love to have a serious break-away threat in the running back room, someone who when you put him on the field is a threat to make a big play. Wade is the only guy on the roster who is that kind of threat. His lack of special teams experience hurts him; he'd have a shot if he could be the kick returner, and last time we talked about this, someone pointed out that at his position in rugby he actually had a lot of experience fielding balls kicked in the air. However, those ball fly truer than a football, especially a football in the wind. Worse for him, however, is that Stevenson has come along to challenge McKenzie for his spot, so Wade has two kick returners to beat out of the special teams spot. On top of that, as others have pointed out, to be a third down back, he has to be able to block. He's had a couple of years to practice and learn that role, so that's something, but he doesn't see the field unless he's very good at that role. On that interview he did on some British podcast several months ago, he admitted that he still was weak on blocking technique, and how good he is recognizing defenses and reacting to blitzes is anyone's guess. Put those two points together with just his general lack of experience and you have to guess that he's a longshot to make the roster. If he does, it's a credit to him, McDermott and the coaching staff.

Start over from their email. When you click to start the process, the pass code is on the next screen. Look for it.

It will be interesting to see how many Steelers fans show up in Buffalo. It will be a test of the Steelers' staying power. A calculating fan will realize that there probably won't be many Steelers fans there because the game will be sold out and Bills fans want to see the AFCE flag raised. Plus, Steelers fans have to be discouraged about their team, and about the strength of the Bills. On the other hand, Steelers fans are resilient. It will be interesting to see.

At Super Bowl XXV I sat next to a guy who was born and raised in NYC. His family had had Giants tickets for decades - his father, maybe even his grandfather. He went to all the Giants games. In the early 80s he took a job in Buffalo. He bought Bills season tickets. Every weekend the Bills weren't at home, he flew home to go to the Giants games. In the late 80s, he moved back to NYC and kept his Bills tickets. Then he went to every Giants home game, and went to Buffalo for home games if the Giants weren't home. That season he had seen every Giants home game, every Bills home game when the Giants weren't home, every Bills playoff game and every Giants playoff game except the NFC Championship game, which was in SF and there was no way to see both championship games. Then he saw a Bills-Giants Super Bowl.

You're right about positive or negative. Some people here, and in the league, subscribe to the theory that you build to make a run at the Lombardi, and then you rebuild. Hard to say whether that approach is right or wrong, but it's clear McBeane aren't following that model. Their model is that they will keep adding good players, and in order to win the coaches and the players have to continue to improve at coaching and playing.

Arm - Nice summary. I have a couple of reactions. One is that the solutions are long-term, not short-term. The Bills probably will get some help from the new people they've added, but the real impact of those people in the problem areas is likely not to be seen for a couple of seasons. The edge rushers probably will see the field in 2021 but like Epenesa, they will be expected to be large contributors in 2022. Anything more than that is a bonus. Same with the three offensive linemen - not likely to be impact players in year on. As I've said in other places, I think your analysis of Edmunds is incorrect. Edmunds wasn't regularly getting "fooled" in pass coverage. Edmunds was getting optioned. Teams began developing route trees that left Edmunds with two guys to cover over the middle - when he chose one, the QB threw the other way. It wasn't an Edmunds weakness; it was a defensive design weakness. It will be addressed in coaching - how well remains to be seen. Edmunds has his weaknesses, but he is pretty consistent in executing his assignment. He isn't Superman - he can't be in two places at one time.

There is NO reason to gamble more on this season's roster. The objective is sustained, long-term excellence. Period. It's not about the other teams and what they are doing or not doing. Build the best team you can for the longest possible time.

I'm a team player. I'm doing my part. And, for the record, I'm not very interested in Ertz. Too old, on the downslope.

Very true. Track athletes and football players train differently and develop different muscles to maximize different kinds of performance. The fact that Metcalf can compete with track athletes is impressive. But if he wants to go to the Olympics, he's going to have to spend a lot of train retraining his body, and that time and that training will detract from his football performance. It's never been clear how much Goodwin's devotion to track limited his football development, but it at least made a little sense in his case, because his primary football advantage came from his speed. Metcalf combines size, strength, and speed, and elite track training will make less competitive on the football field in other ways. For example, while Metcalf is training for track, he will do nothing at all to develop the deceleration muscles that give Diggs is remarkable escapability. It's overused, but Metcalf is a freak.

I don't disagree. Give him every opportunity. Maybe he needed a whole season to learn past pro and other stuff, and the Bill's think now he's ready. Maybe he is why the Bills weren't looking hard for a rb. All I'm saying is that every few years there is a late season guy who people get excited about.

That's a good point. That in-depth article about Singletary from a couple of weeks ago made that point. It said that the opportunities that the offensive line did create last season were small and they require quick, one-cut decisions. See it, hit it, then figure out what to do when you're in the hole. Moss was much better than Singletary doing that last season. Singletary was more hesitant. The article said that that's what Singletary is focusing on. It's the kind of running that we saw from Singletary two years ago, when the holes were a little bigger. The point is the same, however. Assuming Singletary attacks the line the way he can, the Bills don't need better running backs - they need the line to do its job. Would I like a more talented ball carrier? Sure. Kareem Hunt would have been a cool addition. Hunt would have needed run blocking too, but his extra gear and shiftiness would have been a nice addition.

Thanks for this. I'd seen that stat before and forgotten about it. I just have this image of run after run with no place for Moss or Singletary to go. Give them a decent crease, and they were pretty good. I like the offensive line coming into this season. I don't know, but I think the coaches really like the power game Ford can bring, if they can keep him on the field. As I've said before, I wonder whether Feliciano might push Morse at center. I won't be surprised if the running game bounces back this season, and if it does, it will be the front five doing it.

I agree. Nothing happens more consistently in the NFL than the late-season flash of some running back who's been mired way down on the depth chart. Fans get all excited and think the guy is going to be a 1000-yard back next season. That guy is at the bottom of the depth chart for a reason, probably two or three reasons. He flashed for any of several reasons - (1) much of the success of running backs is attributable to offensive line play - any of the team's backs would have had a nice game running behind the line that day, (2) it's the end of the season and the defense mailed it in, (3) no one on the defense had ever seen the kid, either live or on film. If Williams were Adrian Peterson, he would be the starting running back. He isn't, and he isn't.