Arm of Harm

I agree with you about Virgil doing very good work, but don't sell yourself short. Back in the day, your thread would be the first thing I'd look for after a game, and the one thread I'd want to read most. A perfect world for me looks like you doing your thread once again, while Virgil does his own "a few thoughts" thread. 👍

I’m ahead of the curve.

My earlier post was a comment, not a complaint. I realize the Bills have limited resources, whether we're talking draft picks or salary cap space. Sometimes you have to roll with what you have, even if it's not what you'd necessarily wanted. With CB there's a chance of a guy like Dane Jackson stepping up, or maybe Wildgoose, or perhaps some other player. If none of those things happen there's always next year's draft.

I was the most charming, informative, intelligent, prescient, lovable, best all round poster here! 😎 Then I upped my game! 😮

Apparently the 6th round is the place to address skill positions. All other rounds go to the trenches! 😮

Just because the Carolina Panthers hired a full time analytics guy doesn’t mean Beane had to do the same! 🤣 Though I give him credit for being very very fast to follow the Panthers’ example! 😮

What do the Packers think of Love? Supposedly, they've received king's ransom type offers for Rodgers. Rodgers has publicly demanded a trade. If your QB is demanding a trade, and if you've been offered a king's ransom for him, and if you've promised him he'd be traded, and if you're confident the guy you've drafted is your next franchise QB, why not pull the trigger? The obvious explanation is that the Packers are not confident Love will be their next franchise QB. If Rodgers gets traded away two things happen: 1) Love's true level of play gets revealed (bust?) and 2) the Packers no longer have arguably the greatest QB in NFL history to prop up their winning percentage. The combination of those two things could be disastrous for the careers of the Packers' GM and head coach. In an effort to avoid that disaster the Packers have evidently chosen not to trade him away, hoping that he won't follow through on his threat to hold out.

> The Packers were 6-9-1 just 3 years ago, with Rodgers. Three years ago (2018) Rodgers threw for 7.4 yards per attempt, had a 97.6 QB rating, and had over 4400 passing yards. Brady's career averages are 7.5 yards per attempt and 97.3 QB rating. So, there's nothing to suggest Rodgers was the problem in 2018. The Packers going 6-9-1 is an indication the Packers were even worse, in terms of talent level and coaching, than they were the year Rodgers went 6-2 while his backup went 2-5-1. > How many other franchises have replaced one HOF franchise QB with another? The GM and coaching staff who'd been involved in trading for Favre had been gone for decades. The current GM and coaching staff should be evaluated on their own merits, not allowed to ride on the coattails of guys who are long gone. Take Rodgers away from the Packers and they are a losing team. > It's a team sport, but old man Brady just strolls into Tampa (into the wrong house even) and wins a SB? Tampa Bay had assembled a great football team, and they only needed a QB. Signing Brady as a free agent seems to have worked out well for them.

1) Rodgers played at an outstanding level that whole Super Bowl, which is why Green Bay never trailed. 3) I'll grant that yards per attempt and QB rating are not the end all be all. In some situations it's easier to put together good numbers than others. In Kansas City, Alex Smith put up insanely good, better than most Hall of Fame player type numbers, especially in his last year as starter. This, after having put up very pedestrian numbers elsewhere. So, KC is a great place to put up good numbers. During Rodgers' time as a starter, his backup led the team to a 2-5-1 record while Rodgers was hurt. Nothing in that leads me to believe there's anything special about Green Bay's system which sets a QB up for an unusually high level of individual or team success. 4) You state that Brady has a better winning record than Rodgers. I'd point out that football is a team sport. An individual player does not win or lose games. The Patriots went 11-5 when Brady was out with an injury and Matt Cassell came in. The Packers went 2-5-1 when Rodgers was out and his backup played. The Patriots were a better team, and a better-run organization, than the Packers. Prior to Rodgers' injury, the Packers were 6-2--on pace for a 12-4 season, which would have been a fairly normal record for them with Rodgers under center. Going from a 6-2 team with Rodgers, to a 2-5-1 team without him, may be one of the reasons why Vegas believes he's worth more points than any other QB in NFL history. Brady's time with the Patriots was as a great QB on a very good team. Rodgers' time with the Packers has been a great QB propping up what would otherwise have been a losing team. Comparing the two QBs' W/L record is apples to oranges.

In that case, he should have signed Ed Wang! 😁

Several factors to consider: 1) No way does Green Bay win that Super Bowl with either Brady or Manning. 2) If you’re in a “what have you done for me lately?” mood, I’d point out Rodgers just won NFL MVP, with an insanely high level of play. 3) Rodgers’ career yards per attempt and QB rating are a little higher than Brady’s. 4) According to Vegas, Rodgers is worth more points than any other QB in football betting history. Those four factors, among other considerations, are sufficient to put him in the conversation for best QB ever. Obviously there are other names in that discussion as well.

Flat out, the highest level of QB play I’ve ever seen was in Rodgers’ Super Bowl win. Green Bay’s line was utterly dominated. The running game was nonexistent. Rodgers had no opportunity to stand still in any kind of pocket because he had to run for his life pretty much once he’d finished dropping back. Despite all that he had one less than perfect throw the whole game. QB play simply doesn’t get any better than that.

Last year is in the past. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what this year’s regular season and postseason might hold. If you narrowly squeak out a win last year, that’s not a strong indication you’ll necessarily beat that same opponent again this year. Last year the Bills should have, but didn’t, beat the Colts and Ravens convincingly. They should have put up a better fight against the Chiefs, especially on defense. The fact these things didn’t happen is indicative of problems. So then I ask myself what steps the Bills have taken in the off-season to solve those problems. The most obvious is the defensive line/effort to greatly improve the pass rush. The interior of the OL, as well as the WR corps, could improve by virtue of being healthier this postseason than they were the last time around. Then there’s the hope the Bills coaches will come up with a better game plan for dealing with the Chiefs. So, strong opportunities to solve the problems we had last postseason. But it doesn’t help to sweep those problems under the rug, just because we narrowly beat the Colts and Ravens.

After Clements’ rookie deal was over, then GM Marv said that he’d negotiate an extension for Clements, except that Clements “wouldn’t like” the extension the Bills offered. So instead Marv slapped the franchise tag on him, to give Clements the chance to prove himself. Clements played very well during that franchise tag year. Once that franchise tag year was over he then signed a massive contract with the 49ers. A contract he never came close to living up to.

Are the Bills a better regular season team than the Browns? I believe they are, especially when I think back to late season, when they were cutting through their opponents like a hot knife through butter. But when the postseason came, the Bills struggled to beat the Colts. The Colts wouldn't have been in the playoffs at all, had the Bills not beaten the Dolphins in week 17. Also, the Colts almost lost to lowly Jacksonville, in what (for them) was a must win-game. Based on how much better the Bills were than the Colts during the regular season, I expected them to win convincingly. But that's not what happened. The next week the Bills played the Ravens. Sure you could point to the final score and call it a convincing win. But the pick 6 was a 14 point swing. Had that one play been a TD instead of the pick 6, the game would have been either team's to win. So, once again a failure to beat a postseason opponent convincingly. Then there was the debacle against the Chiefs. For whatever reason, the Bills seemingly played at a lower level in the postseason than they had in the regular season. Until we get that problem fixed, we're in no position to look down our noses at a team like the Browns. Cleveland and Buffalo will win enough games to make it to the postseason, so it's the quality of postseason play which really matters.

This OL is bursting and overflowing with depth. No question there. Also we have good starters for both OT spots. The problem as I see it is the starting positions for all three interior OL. Of the guys we have hopefully some step up and give us rock solid play for interior OL. We’ll see how this plays out.

Don’t forget Andre Holmes, WR. During the 2018 season Holmes appeared in 12 games for the Bills, including three starts. He was bad enough that the Bills released him before the end of the 2018 season. At the end of that 2018 season, Holmes exited the NFL.

If you want to throw out all but the first two drives of the Browns/Chiefs playoff game due to the toe injury, that would give the Cleveland defense a 0% efficiency rating, but off a very small sample size. But I don’t think that’s what you’re saying. I think what you mean is that the Cleveland defense hasn’t proven itself against a fully healthy Mahomes. You may or may not be accurate in making that point, depending on how much the toe injury affected his play. If Cleveland’s defense is unable to do a better job of stopping the Chiefs than Buffalo’s defense did, then no one in particular is a threat to dethrone the Chiefs. It is unrealistic to expect to win a football game with a sub 20% efficiency rating on defense. So then you ask yourself if either the Bills or Browns can achieve a 40% or better efficiency rating, in order to give the team a realistic chance to win. The answer to that question will depend on the impact the two teams’ draft picks will have, as well as McDermott’s ability to come up with a viable defensive game plan, the effect of the Browns’ free agent signings, and the effect of KC’s improved offensive line. Not really sure how all that will play out. What I do know is that someone needs to knock KC out of the playoffs, before they tie the Bills’ record for most Super Bowl appearances.

If you look only at those portions of the Chiefs/Browns playoff game where Mahomes played (including the drive where he got hurt), the Browns defense was 34% efficient. Not as high an efficiency rating as their 53% for the game as a whole, but still better than the 22% efficiency of the Bills defense.

Your perspective differs from mine. I believe that the Browns are the biggest threat to unseat the Chiefs, until proven otherwise. Imagine a scale with which to measure defensive effectiveness. A defense which allows a touchdown every drive is 0% effective, a defense which pitches a shutout is 100% effective. Using a scale like that, the Bills defense was 22% effective against the Chiefs offense in the AFC Championship Game. The Browns defense was 53% effective in their postseason game against the Chiefs. While Allen is a better QB than Mayfield, the differential is not great enough to compensate for the Browns defense having been over twice as effective vs the Chiefs. As you pointed out, the Bills lacked the cap space for major free agent signings. The Chiefs and Browns did sign important/good free agents. At least on paper, the Chiefs and Browns improved to a greater degree than the Bills. Do I think that the Bills can turn themselves into the biggest threat to the Chiefs? Yes I do. But, that's going to be on McDermott and Frazier to come up with a much better scheme or plan than the one they deployed in the AFC Championship Game. In that game they had the defensive talent to be more than 22% effective, and it was largely the fault of the scheme or plan that the effectiveness was so limited. There are also other opportunities to improve. Hopefully our WRs will be healthy for the postseason. With the addition of Lamp, the OL may be able to do a much better job this postseason than the bad performance it provided for all three postseason games from last season. Do the Bills have a realistic shot at winning the AFC Championship Game? Absolutely. But from where I sit, the Bills are currently in third place in that particular race, and will need to scratch, claw, and fight with everything they have if they want to move into first.

Let's say you give the #2 CB spot to an aging player like Richard Sherman. And let's say he plays well this year. That's no guarantee that he'll play well next year, because he's at the stage of his career where he's likely to experience age-related decline. On the other hand, if you give the CB #2 spot to a younger player, and if the younger player plays well, you could likely be set at that position for many years.

If your biggest concern about the draft is the lack of a 1 tech, mine is no WR until the 6th round. Sanders and Beasley are both on the wrong side of 30, with Sanders in particular being especially old. Both are on one year deals. This draft had a ton of talent at WR. I'd wanted to see the Bills take a WR in the first or second, groom him for a year, then have him become a starter to take the place of the departing Sanders. That said, I realize the Bills didn't have the draft picks necessary to fill all their needs. I'm pleased with the collection of players they did acquire in this draft.

I gave the OP a thumbs up. My one positive emoji is more important than the 49 negatives! 😉

I feel like “In Summary” should be writing this post. But instead I’ll write it. In summary, Thurman had one factor improving his average yards per carry (much better OL), and two factors decreasing the average (run oriented offense and more LBs). I’m not sure how all that balances out.

The two stats most commonly used to evaluate QBs are yards per pass attempt and QB rating. While numbers like these don't tell the whole story, they do raise the question as to whether Rodgers may be slightly better at throwing the football than Brady. In terms of leadership/on field generalship, I'll grant that Brady is better. As for the Packers being a dysfunctional franchise, I'd like to contribute this article to the conversation. The article points out that in 2013 when Rodgers played, the Packers were 6-2. But when he was out, they were 2-5-1. Compare that to the Patriots, who went 11-5 with Matt Cassell under center. Without Brady, the Patriots were still a good team. The same cannot possibly be said of the Packers without Rodgers. Rodgers is good enough that he can turn a losing team, a 2-5-1 team, into a legitimate Super Bowl contender. But, he is not good enough to take what would otherwise be a 4 - 5 win team and turn it into a Super Bowl Champion. Neither is any other quarterback who's ever played.