MJS

Hmm, I thought he was pretty good. Overrated, sure, but I still thought he'd be a good corner for them. But he turned out to be a disaster. I'm not sure why he played so much better in NE. Maybe he needed the New England cheating and spying machine to succeed?

Mahomes was a first round draft pick. He was always expected to take over. Smith, despite his good numbers, was always seen as an average QB, kind of like a high-end bridge QB. And he had the label of "game manager" already. I don't think it was a bold move to move on from him. It was expected at the time.

Overruled the squib kick? Everything I have seen and heard is that everyone, including McDermott, was expecting the squib kick, but Bass did not get the word from the coaches. And we don't know for sure that McDermott called the D. That's a logical assumption, but he could have also trusted Frazier to do it and got seriously burned by that decision. We don't know because they've been tight lipped about it.

I've made similar comments. I used to watch other games and ask myself "Why can't my team look like that?", and now I watch and get pretty bored. Yeah, some games are interesting and there are a couple of other teams that are exciting too, but the Bills (the defense too, mind you) are just such a fun and explosive team.

I'd classify the Jets as a defensive team and the Dolphins as an offensive team. Their strengths in coaching, scheme, personnel, etc. are on those sides of the ball. The Jets defense gives most QB's a hard time, not just Josh Allen. And we seem to always play the Jets very early in the season, often week 1 or 2. I think that plays into it. It can take Josh and the offense a bit of time to click and acclimate.

Yeah, let's base all our roster decisions on preseason snaps...

The delusional hate for Dorsey is reaching imbecilic levels now.

You have to account for the era they played in too. Tom Brady started in an era that was more brutal and more difficult to be an efficient QB. Today you also see the west coast offense spreading things out, making it easier for QB's to read the defense and make completions. If Jimmy G started playing in 2001, he would not have been as good as Tom Brady in passer rating. You see a steady incline in passer rating averages over the years, and that is due to 1) legislating defense out of the game, and 2) offensive schemes making it easier for QB's.

Most people do know DVOA. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't. It is just projecting ignorance on others.

Knox was a reception too.

Surprised they didn't at least show the Diggs run.

Not to mention that short, sustained completions eats away the clock and keeps the ball away from the other offense. And those QB's were a combined 52-20 wins/losses last year. I'd say there is definitely correlation with passer rating and winning, and I'd bet the statistical analysis would bear that out if you ran the numbers.

Ok, so let's say your receiver drops a perfectly thrown pass. Does that mean you didn't play a perfect game because your teammate screwed up? I think the metric shows that if you perform at a certain level, you essentially max out your chance to win. You could perhaps do better, but if you are performing at a 158.3 level, you are basically playing perfect football as a QB and giving your team the highest possible chance to win. And it is weaker as a one game stat anyway. It is stronger the more games you add. I remember Geno Smith had a season with the Jets where he had a game with a perfect 158.3 rating as well as a game with a perfect 0.0 rating. That has to be rare.

Yeah, but it isn't called "QB performance rating", it is called "passer rating". It is only trying to measure passing success. It is one of many metrics to consider when evaluating the performance of a QB. And you know, I'd say if you have a QB who is excellent at running, and horrible at passing, so that QB puts up rushing stats but has a low passer rating, that QB will eventually be exposed as a poor QB. You can't keep that up for a long time. Eventually, as a QB, you have to become a good passer, regardless of what you do on the ground. QBR takes into account rushing stats, but that metric really has some issues, in my opinion. In the end, the QB with the highest passer ratings through many games is almost always the better performing QB. It is a useful stat. His passer rating was 84.3 that season. And you know? That seems about right. Maybe there needs to also be some kind of volatility metric too. Taken with passer rating, you could see who is consistently performing without all the crazy highs and lows.

It's not correct to say it is flawed. That's your opinion too. The metric measures what the original person who created it wanted it to. To them, an INT is worth more than a TD, and I completely agree. Throwing an INT is worse for your team than throwing a TD is good for your team. If your TD's equal your INT's, that is a poor day throwing the football. Passer rating is perfectly fine if we understand it and don't try to make it something it isn't.

It's perfectly fine because we all understand, in general, how good of a game the passer had. The closer to 158.3, the better they threw the ball. The lower, the worse they threw the ball. It isn't the only metric you use to look at a QB. That doesn't exist. You have to take into account many different metrics. Passer rating is one, and it should be one. Part of the reason why it should be one is because everyone is used to it and immediately comprehends what a good and bad passer rating is. I like passer rating better than QBR, because I think that inflates rushing stats, but that is another metric to consider, with all the rest. Nobody should look at only one metric and expect to understand how a player performed. They need to all be taken together. It doesn't have any flaws. It does exactly what it purports to do. The flaw is in the interpretation. If someone looks at passer rating and expects to completely understand how a player performed just from that, they are misusing the metric.

Yeah, he's been on our practice squad a lot. I don't think there is some huge demand out there for him. He has looked decent, though.

It has been a tough injury year for corners, but I don't think that negates their worth. There are defensive schemes out there that blitz and rely on man coverage. Corner is more of a premium in those defenses. For ours, I think it is less of a premium because of how much zone we play.

If he ever played for the Bills it would be very difficult for me as a fan. I dispise Hill. Let's hope that never happens. I don't care how good he is at football.

I'd cut Jonathan, personally. Especially since Phillips is a ticking injury time bomb at DT. Poona Ford is good insurance for when that happens.

I don't think Hill watched press conferences. He'll be oblivious, I'm sure, even if Tua was directing something at him, which is a big if.

Well, there have been a lot of great teams in the past who have prioritized cornerback. There isn't just one way to do it. McDermott is great at getting the secondary to maximize their potential, though, so in the past he has skimped there and invested in other areas, until he paid Tre. I think he felt that Tre earned it and he wanted to send the message that when you earn it the Bills will do right by you, within reason. But I don't think that having an elite corner is critical to McDermott’s scheme.

Hill has always been a self absorbed dirt bag. I'm sure he is a frustrating teammate to have, but everyone looks the other way because of his physical abilities. We'll see how long that lasts when he gets older and loses a step. As for Tua's remarks, I don't think he is trying to call anyone out. He's just trying to say the right things and get through his media duties.

Eventually they will have to make a move on the dline. I don't think it makes much sense to carry so many for the rest of the season once Von is back.

That's nonsense. They all want to be head coaches. Of course they do.