MJS

I don't think you are making it up, but I do think you are putting too much stock into unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracies. Until an actual source with information presents itself, I'm not going to trust junk like this. McDermott took 90% of the blame for 13 seconds. Farwell and Frazier did not take the brunt of the blame from fans and the media. McDermott clearly did, and still does.

Man, it must suck to be the weakest link in football. You just get abused. Like the Bills targeting Kohou with Diggs.

I like these a lot. I hope you're able to keep doing them. Do you feel like Brown is being targeted by opposing teams? If they perceive him to be the weakest link, they may try things to take advantage of him. If so, that means Brown is just naturally going to have a much tougher time and give up more pressures.

Preseason games are glorified practices, with fewer reps. They are a part of the evaluation, but only a part.

The preseason games (what you and I see) are a small fraction of what the coaches see and use to evaluate players.

The really impressive thing is that when the Bills lose, it is almost always by only a few points and usually requires a bunch of big, self-inflicted wounds, like a bunch of turnovers. The Bills almost never lose by multiple scores. I know there has been a game here and there, but they are rare.

Josh Allen had a trash team his rookie year and he absolutely showed flashes of his potential as a passer. Fields is in year 3. People still kind of treat him like a rookie, almost. He just doesn't have what it takes. Yeah, but Diggs torches ALL the top corners. He seems to relish in it. Jackson was overrated for sure (some were saying he was the best corner in the league), but I still thought he would be good.

I'd be fine with that. Fields is not a good QB. He's a great runner, but he is not a good QB. You'd think the league would have learned by now.

Personal BS of Elam not performing as well as the corners in front of him? He's the third CB now. He won't be starting, but he should be active.

I don't think it matters. Why are you worried about our 6th best defensive end? He is barely playing. He took 7 snaps against the Dolphins.

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.