Mikie2times

On the opposite side of the spectrum. How the hell did we get the 23rd pick for Peerless Price? ?

You can't make hiring and firing decisions based on protected class. For example I can't fire an FMLA employee for never being at work when they are using FMLA (so long as the FMLA use is within guidelines). FMLA protects the absenteeism. I think where people get confused is protected class/consistency in internal processes. Seattle did nothing wrong and can choose as a company not to hire employees who kneel during the national anthem. They do get exposure however when they don't apply that same standard to all employees. That exposure isn't direct but it's exposure most employers like to avoid. For example if you hired a QB who refused to stand during the national anthem now CK could file a lawsuit stating he wasn't hired based on the color of his skin. That would be a protected class issue. Now it would be up to the employer to prove that not hiring him had nothing to do with the lawsuits allegations (skin color). They would also be in a bit of a pinch trying to justify kneeling as cause for not hiring him because they hired another person who they did not apply that same standard with. These are the murky areas companies don't like to find themselves in. It can be hard for the employer to prove why exceptions were made for one and not the other. Employers hate exceptions. They like to treat everybody the same because it eliminates peoples ability to play the protected class card as much as possible. It still doesn't eliminate it. If it's a bigger company they will likely just settle with the employee even if the accusation is baseless. It's just not worth the legal fees. I've seen it happen multiple times where an employee sued my employer for protected class termination, had zero leg to stand on, and we just settled because it wasn't worth dealing with.

My response to my own question. It depends on the performance of the team (duh). That said it's unlikely the performance of the team ascends if we miss. It's likely we give up a good degree of assets in order to trade up. We gave up a good number of assets in order to get in position to trade up. We can talk about that in more granular fashion now. How Sammy was out the door, we had a replacement for Glenn, what great moves we made now to get something instead of nothing. Three years from now people won't be talking in those terms. They will just be saying we lost x/y/z players and draft picks for a bust QB. If the QB position is neutral or worse I would think it's game over. Throw in potential good play from Watson or Mahomes, players we could of had last year. Again people won't be saying well Tre White was a great pick. It will just be more gas on the can't find a QB fire. As for people that have changed the question toward us passing on QB being just as significant? That's really hard to say. At that point I still think it would depend on resolution to the QB issues, but in such a scenario you would think we would have one hell of a roster with how many picks we would spend on positional players and cap space in future years. So resolution to the QB issue might now be as a clear, but perhaps we have a very competitive team. I don't think our regime is ruled by the question posed in this thread, but how can't that question have some influence? These are still human beings that want to do human being things like maintain employment. We won't get fleeced for a trade up. As we keep hearing, if a deal is to be made we will be open to such a deal, but we won't get fleeced just because we need a franchise QB and have a lot of collateral.

What do you mean shown very little? I never stated that. I don’t have a horse in this race easier as far as thought process. I just thought it was interesting conversation.

A miss would mostly likely leave us out of the playoffs for a few years as the QB is given every opportunity. It seems crazy to think a GM/HC who have shown very positive things early could just as easily be on the hot seat two or three years from now with a miss. Overblowing it or do you agree?

I think reasons exist why less NFL QB's are black. I know these reasons have nothing to do with the color of a persons skin, nor can they be explained with one theory. It's more likely a result of multiple factors.

That could be true, I was basing that more on the pre combine stuff. I didn't read that yet so I didn't factor it.

Oh I know, I try an find ones that seem realistic.

Jackson was gone by then, I could have taken Rudolph

I did two separate mocks on Fan Speak. Settings I used were Fanspeak Mock, Fanspeak Needs, Difficult. This does not allow for trades. My thoughts entering this was where do I look at Jackson and Allen if at all. I decided I would consider Jackson at #22 but not Allen at all. I don't like either. College QB's with the amount of rush yards Jackson had in college have a huge bust rate. Only Michael Vick and Cam Newton have really worked out as comparable players to Jackson in rush yards in college, then a long list of busts. Allen seems afraid to just step up and that scares the crap out of me. His line was bad, but he doesn't step up when he has time. Bails very early. I just don't want him. Mayfield/Darnold/Rosen all were selected before I could take them. Here are my drafts with the settings I mentioned above as well as a link to the site: https://fanspeak.com/ontheclock/ Draft 1 Round 1 #12: LB Tremain Edmunds: With only Jackson and Allen left to choose from, Bills go best player available at a need position. Round 1 #22: DT Maurice Hurst: Bills decide to pass on Allen landing a very disruptive pass rushing interior lineman. Round 2 #21: WR Christian Kirk: Thick, quick, great hands. Bills go best WR left on the board Round 2: #24: CB M.J. Stewart: Bills love his flexibility on defense, great run defender, physical, can play S or CB, some people comp him to Micah Hyde Round 3: # 1: C/G Billy Price: Torn Pec makes this former first rounder slide. Bills get a steal with a guy that can play C or G. Round 3: #32: DE Rasheem Green: Bills love Greens pass rushing ability. 10 sack year in 2017, some question run support, with Shaq it gives the Bills a great rotation Draft 2 Round 1 #12: DE/EDGE Harold Landry: With only Jackson and Allen left to choose from, Bills catch a break and have one of the drafts best pass rushers fall. Some comps have him with Vic Beasley. Imposing pass rusher that will mature to be a 10 sack a year guy. Round 1 #22: DT Maurice Hurst: Bills decide to pass on Allen landing a very disruptive pass rushing interior lineman. Round 2 #21: WR Christian Kirk: Thick, quick, great hands. Bills go best WR left on the board Round 2 #24: CB M.J. Stewart: Bills love his flexibility on defense, great run defender, physical, can play S or CB, some people comp him to Micah Hyde Round 3 #1: QB Kyle Lauletta: Bills pass on the first wave of QB's and eventually land a guy they like Round 3 #32: LB Leighton Vander Esch: Bills continue to fortify the defense with a guy that could go as early as round 2. I don't think either of these drafts gets the fan base going, we all want the franchise guy. I think the Bills trust AJ enough to avoid getting fleeced in the franchise QB war. If the right guy doesn't fall we could be out of the market.

Bust rate doesn't change if you trade up. 30-35% is about the likelihood of getting the right guy in the top 10. Multiple studies have been posted on this. Trading up doesn't reduce or increase the likelihood of finding a hit.

I would prefer a player wanting to know the deepest meaning behind every action so he could apply that learning to the highest level vs a player that just does what he's told. The former personalty can rub people wrong. It's questioning. It's not yes sir. If it doesn't make sense it gets questioned. That's how this guys is and it rubs some coaches wrong. I don't care, I like it.

Opportunistic, bend but don't break

Gaines is gone. His compensatory pick value will be 3rd rounder in 2019 so long as we keep the rest of our comp book balanced. Davis was such a great signing for multiple reasons. Potential boom player AND he didn't count against the comp formula. This is a very smart front office.

Good decision by the front office. I don't see it as more at this time. I'm sure we will add another corner, I don't expect that to be a 1st rounder. Davis is a nice layer in that equation, has boom potential but we need a few more layers for depth and the potential for bust.

Not exactly the best way to measure this. I imagine a strong correlation exists with total snaps and total plays. If you want this stat to just focus on what it's intended you need a denominator.

Stoked, could be a complete steal if he remains healthy

Since you live in a vortex of league averages and you have clearly demonstrated all PPG data falls in line the last 30 years, let me ask you to consider a question... Top 3 QB today faces the most elite coverage in NFL history, who posts a 100QB average on the year vs a top 5 defense? Top 3 QB 30 years ago who faces league average coverage ability, who posts a 90QB rating on the year vs a top 5 defense? This is where your argument turns to crap. That QB 30 years ago played against defenses with much more diversity. All 32 teams did not focus a #1 priority in stopping the pass. Today's good pass defenses are the best in NFL history and they still aren't enough to stop the best pass offenses. 30 years ago you might face a lot of puppies, but then you might run into an elite pass defending squad. Same with running the ball. Teams had diversity and depending on the strength they had those strengths could lead to some compelling match up's. Now what is your match up? I'm a Bills fan, that's all I am. I will follow the Bills. But I don't watch anymore NFL football. College football has been able to maintain that unique identity each team has in the ways the NFL has lost it. PPG does not capture anything being described. To answer the original question I posed, if the goal was winning, you would take the first scenario every time.

Nope, the game is played exactly the same way as when they had the single wing. Just ask WEO. PPG is only up a smidgen so it all has to be the same.

Lot's of ways to arrive at the same outcome, the ride is not material. Gotcha.

What does dramatic mean to you? If I took 10% of your annual earnings would you consider that a dramatic reduction or would you minimize it in the same fashion you have toward every stat that doesn't fit your agenda?

Yes, thank you for illustrating my point clearly, 11% increase in passing TD's, 10% increase in passing yards, 9% increase in passing first downs. That's going off your data from 1994-2004 vs 2004-current? (2004 being a key year as that was the year heavy enforcement of illegal contact started). I already stated about 4 times in this thread the thread title should have been about how the game is played more than scoring defense. The original language in the first post discussed frustration with a passing league. So I felt that was in bounds to discuss? You stuck on a strawman fixating this discussion about points scored when it was conceded long ago that it was not a material difference. All the while, you have no earthly clue how that moderate and not severe incline came to be...... Bad offense perhaps or great defense? I don't know the answer, but I know you know. At least either that or we will talk about points scored for another 2 hours.

Dude. Give up. I conceded a 2 point increase in PPG wasn’t material and that the thread topic should have been more about how the game is played. You have no chance of winning an argument that the passing game is not drastically more efficient then years past. So unless you want to debate that, drop it. Points per game are not up THAT much. Passing attempts per game, completion %, yards, 1st down through the air, quarterback rating are all up dramatically. Are you saying that isn’t the case? If so please provide something outside of random years to your liking. Provide at least a decade sample.

It’s boring debating with somebody that assums what they say is right without anything to support it. I already conceded it’s not so much about points as the way the game is played. The enforcement of the chuck rule was well documented, not my opinion, in giving WR’s a decided advantage. Of which all the statistics verify conclusively. This is exactly like the MLB. The pass to the NFL is the HR to baseball. MLB has now ordered teams to keep balls in climate controlled humadors to see if teams can combat the HR impacts. Some fans apprently don’t like half the league averaging 30 HR’s. Do your research on that topic as well. Not really a claim at this point. The two things are the same. Shift the rules to push a part of the game casual fans find exciting. More likely it it has turned FG into TD’s? You can’t have it both ways. If that was the case points would be up at a rate that you have all ready went to great lengths to refute.

I will concede it's not so much points allowed as it is the way those points are allowed. All QB stats are grossly inflated compared to the 90's. More of the games production has come in the air. The defensive battles seem to occur more from sloppy offensive play then good defense. Then you have the teams with QB's who resemble NBA teams which is a great analogy by Bills Fan in Maryland. We didn't need the chuck rule. The balance of power between QB and defense was perfect. Now it has become imbalanced and that's not something I enjoy. A lot of people think the measurements in a baseball were either intentionally or unintentionally altered ever so slightly and that has been whats led to the ridiculous HR totals after the 2016 All Star break. I see that as very similar to the current state of the NFL. I don't like baseball with a pitcher hitting opposite field HR's.