Dibs

I don't know what can be taken from this without some context. Bradham: TT has been great. He's been accurate and he's elusive. Taylor: ...probably the most athletic QB in the league. Who knows? Maybe they were actually raving about him....but maybe they were simply answering questions and these specific parts were taken to create an interesting narative for an article.

Thanks guys, I was initially compiling some of those stats but stopped due to them showing no correlation to virtually anything. The numbers are all over the place, particularly in regards to number of carries. Injuries, specifically at what time in a players career they occurred, greatly affected the numbers of carry statistics. The only conclusions one could draw from the number of carries stat were that players who played longer tended to have more carries, and that players who's careers were cut short due to injury tended to have less carries.....which was obviously expected prior to seeing any stats. I have however gone through and done the complete stats compiling playoff numbers into the season numbers(as Dave suggested)(see below). I have chosen not to add the receiving stats into the numbers as I am not only uncertain as to whether RB hits are fully comparable to WR hits, but also because upon seeing the final numbers feel that adding the WR stats into the mix will not alter things. If you feel strongly otherwise, I am fully willing to listen to good logical reasons to do it in the future. Though, as I said, the stats for this come across largely irrelevant, there was one aspect which I think was extremely interesting. I compiled numbers as NoSaint suggested into heavy run season categories(300-324, 325-349, etc). I should note at this point that prior to adding in the playoff stats there were remarkably few heavy run seasons. There was only 1 season from the 25 RBs that was over 400(Eddie George), and only 7 seasons in the 375-399 category. After adding in the playoff numbers, these fields were greatly expanded(17 over 400). Back to the point, the extremely interesting part is that the concept that a RB's heavy run seasons will effect their long term durability or lead to serious injury seems to be spurious logic. Using the "29 years old" from the OP as the 50/50 benchmark(roughly 50% chance that a RB will play well after 29 years of age)....the numbers break down as follows. 2x450+ seasons(2 players): 1 by 29 years or less(1 players) 1 by 30 years or older(1 players) 7x425+ seasons(4 players): 3 by 29 years or less(2 players) 4 by 30 years or older(2 players) 17x400+ seasons(11 players): 9 by 29 years or less(6 players) 8 by 30 years or older(5 players) 21x375+ seasons(12 players): 10 by 29 years or less(6 players) 11 by 30 years or older(6 players) 17 of the 25 players had 350+ seasons. As you can see, the heavy rush seasons are evenly split along the age delineation, and when you look at the numbers below you will see that similar to the basic rush number stats, the heavy rush season stats roughly followed the base rule of, "the more you play, the more you'll have"....meaning that compiling multiple heavy rush seasons didn't seem to have any affect on a player's longevity. I think the spurious logic involved with this is fairly obvious. One sees a top RB get injured....one notices that they had a lot of carries the previous few years....one sees it happen to multiple RBs.....one draws a causal relationship between the two things. We tend not to notice the many instances where RBs go through heavy rush seasons(and following) when they don't get injured, just as we don't look for reasons when a non-heavy rush seasoned RB gets injured(FJ is a good example in 2011). Obviously rushing 400 times in a season will increase ones chances of injury due to the extra touches, but I cannot see any correlation that it is a precursor to ending careers. Here is the list of RBs. If anybody can do better than myself and spot a pattern or trend I would love to know. Same criteria as in OP. Age of player's last 1,000 season("i" is injury finished, "*" is no wall or still playing)....Name....rushes(regular+post) to that point....(300-324 rush seasons, 325-349, etc) Sorted by rush attempts: 28i Deuce McAllister: 1325 (0,1,1,0,0) 28i Terry Allen: 1346 (0,2,0,0,0) 30i Priest Holmes: 1461 (1,2,0,0,0) 26i Terrell Davis: 1547 (0,0,1,0,0,1,1) 28 Chris Johnson: 1753 (1,0,1,0,0) 28i Shaun Alexander: (1,1,1,0,0,1) 29 Ahman Green: 1987 (0,1,0,0,1) 27i Clinton Portis: 2122 (1,2,2,0,0) 32 Ricky Williams: 2174 (1,0,0,2,0) 30i Corey Dillon: 2275 (2,1,0,0,1) 27i Marshall Faulk: 2281 (3,0,0,0,0) 31* Tiki Barber: 2337 (1,1,2,0,0) 29 Steven Jackson: 2412 (1,2,0,0,0) 31 Fred Taylor: 2412 (1,1,0,0,0) 29 Jamal Lewis: 2529 (1,1,0,0,2) 31* Frank Gore: 2572 (4,0,0,0,0) 31i Ricky Watters: 2725 (1,1,2,0,0) 29 LaDainian Tomlinson: 2741 (1,3,3,0,0) 29i Jerome Bettis: 2781 (2,0,2,0,1) 30 Thurman Thomas: 2893 (2,2,1,0,1) 30 Eddie George: 2939 (1,2,2,0,0,2) 29 Edgerrin James: 3006 (1,1,3,1,1) 30* Barry Sanders: 3153 (3,3,1,0,0) 31 Curtis Martin: 3480 (2,1,2,0,2) 32 Emmitt Smith: 4147 (0,3,1,1,1,1,1) McCoy for comparison: 26* LeSean McCoy: 1499 (1,1,0,0,0)

No. A "wild speculation" is a type of question...which is what you did in the OP. A reasonable question would have been somewhat similar to what you suggested mid-thread "Might Garoppolo unseat Brady during his 4 games as a starter?" Of course not. But if you can't see that the two we were comparing are vastly different then that is a reflection on yourself, not on me. That concept is totally irrelevant as you were speculating on things that are happening now in camp. I already acknowledged that I accept the concept of potential future changes to Brady/Garoppolo. I don't think I would have reacted as such....but I guess you'd know me better. Simply speculating on something does not necessarily mean one has thought things through. Are we having fun yet?

Yes. I understand the difference....and fully admit guilt in this case. Wild speculation is the former. Condemning wild speculation as ludicrous is the later. Though it may be the same coaches and owner....as I previously stated...it is not the same situation. Replacing a QB who has been injured due to seeing how good the replacement has played in many games through a season is totally different to knowing your QB is going to be out for 4 games and deciding to hold an open QB competition in camp.

The concept that you thought I was in some way trying to undermine Bledsoe's contribution helps explain why this conversation feels like herding cats. Post #55 was in reference to post #48....which was referencing post #41....which was your response to the concept that the OP was wild speculation. Your comment in post #41 in a stand alone context is quite reasonable. There is a chance that Garoppolo getting to start 4 games could unseat Brady. It isn't likely as Brady just won a SB and was MVP candidate....and in comparison to Brady unseating Bledsoe will be a much bigger task....but possible non the less. The problem you have here is that the above proposition was not the same as in the OP. By you speculating in the OP, "Is he saying the QB position is open and will be decided via competition?", you are saying that the coaches might not simply recognize a better QB on the field(in games) and stick with them over the aging incumbent(which you came to saying later in the thread...#41)....but are saying they could be actively, with predetermination, be opening up an open QB competition, which is honestly quite ludicrous.

What's your point? Brady taking Bledsoe's job during season after he got injured(and becoming a SB winning pro-bowler) has no correlation to the thread premise.

This is pretty much a non-story. Things might have been different had Manziel hit the kid with the water bottle.......but there was never much chance that was happening.

That's not exactly correct. Bledsoe didn't return during the season, he returned during the conference final when Brady got injured. He was the backup to a pro-bowl Brady at that point. His stats on the day were 10-21-102-1-0 Brady: 12-18-115-0-0

Those 4 reasons are somewhat stupid IMO. 1. Rex LOVES Rice from his 1 year cross-over at Ravens. I find this hard to believe. Why would the Defensive Coordinator of a team build such strong affection for a 2nd round offensive draft pick that is a backup the year that he is there? He might have LOVED his potential at that point, but that's about all I would think. 2. Run heavy, North-South runner system. Apart from the fact that we are loaded with RBs of all types and styles at the moment, if we are so fixated on needing a North-South style RB it really brings into question as to why we would trade for Shady. Rather than being in need of a N/S style RB, I would think that what we need are RBs that can hit the hole.....which we have in Shady & FJ etc. 3. He's cheap. This reason would apply to every team. 4. Pegula's not afraid of controversy. Name a team that is afraid of controversy. They all are, and aren't, depending on the situation. This would not even be on anybody's radar if not for the tenuous Rex-Rice connection.

Because Harvin was never on a 3 year contract. It was always a 1 year deal that was structured as a 3 year deal to save a few cap dollars this season. The 2nd and 3rd years have already been voided. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/percy-harvin/ It is possible that we re-sign him next season, but would be competing with other teams as he will be a FA.

You been on the wine early today?

Yes, but saying... ...is something completely different.

I am pretty sure that McCoy would have only been here for the 3 seasons left on his contract had we stubbournly refused the small extension we gave him. That might have been fine if he gets injured or hits the wall....but since there is a good chance that he remains productive for a few more years, it is not a smart way to build a solid team....nor does it send a good message to the rest of the players. We would have also had to handle his hefty $9M cap hit this season(which is now $5.5M). The guaranteed monies are not as they used to be. His SB of $13.125 is the only real guaranteed money. His 2015 money is guaranteed...but that would virtually always be paid anyway. And his 2016 money is guaranteed as of the first league day in 2016...which means if we we want to cut him at the end of this year we can, for no additional money. If we don't cut him after 1 year, just like the first year, his money most very likely would be paid regardless(very few big FA signings like this don't see 2 years of their contracts). As to your last comment....my odds, as you put it, were directly taken from previous players history. They are what they are. Unless one can come up with a reasonable explanation as to why McCoy should be an outlier I see no reason not to accept them. They weren't even that good IMO. The odds showed a 50% chance that giving the 2 year extension becomes a total waste of money.

It's actually better than that. If he declines at 30, that will be during the 4th year...therefore we cut him for the 5th costing $2.6M. He would need to decline in his 3rd year(when he is 29) in order for us to cut him when he is 30. If he declines at the age of 31, at the end of that year his contract will be finished(no need to cut him).

Though Brady is a cheat, a primadonna, a whiney whinger and a ginormous girly-man, he is still a superstar QB who just won the SB. How anybody can think(or even lazily speculate) that Garoppolo getting first team reps is anything to do with something other than Brady's 4 game suspension is beyond me.

Which ever QB ends up starting I think will have a very good season.

Surely you aren't saying that only teams in "win now" mode covet star RBs? And I was hoping to leave the aquisition of McCoy alone(covered in many other threads) and focus on the contract that we gave him. Agreed. Also natural variants in runners' durability (some people can naturally take more punishment than others) is impossible to factor as well.

Though the McCoy trade has been talked to death on the board, I have noticed that an aspect to those talks has not really been focused on for discussion....and that is the reworking of McCoy's contract. Two main questions seem to stick out in the trade conversations. A) Is the contract that the Bills gave McCoy reasonable? and B) Will he maintain production throughout the entire contract? As I have a bit of spare time I thought that I would do some research regarding these questions. This undoubtedly will be a long post full of clumsily shuffled together numbers. If that isn't your thing, I recommend you stop reading now. You have been warned. Notes: The age of player that I will use throughout will be the player's age as of December 31st for the correlating season. The contract dollars/year is determined upon cap value, not salary. Is the McCoy contract reasonable? Firstly I thought to compare McCoy to equivalent level talent/production. As a vague benchmark I compiled all RBs currently on rosters who have achieved four 1,000+ yard seasons in their first six years in the league. 4x1,000+ yd season in first 6 yrs: McCoy, Lynch, Forte, Foster, Gore, Charles, Peterson At this point I will take Peterson out of any comparisons. He is clearly a level above all other RBs which is reflected in all stats that I compiled. For interest sake, his numbers are: Age: 30, 6 pro-bowls, 3 All-pro, Contract ends age 32, $15.8/yr...23.5% guaranteed, 1st 6 season workload of 1754 carries, 3x300+ carry seasons(1 being 350+). I determined that Gore should also be removed from comparison as even though he has maintained production(1106 yds last season), his age(32) puts his contract after the standard age that we are looking at. His $4M/yr reflects this. Noticeably missing from this list is Murray(4 seasons, 2x1,000+ years). As he not only got a new contract at the same time as McCoy but is also of the same age(27) and of a theoretically equivalent talent I felt he should be added. Comparative RBs(Age now, Age in last year of contract): McCoy(27, 31), Lynch(29, 31), Forte(30, 30), Murray(27, 31), Foster(29, 30), Charles(29, 31) We can see that the standard final year age for this level of RB contract is 31(Forte and Foster being at 30). Comparative RBs(Pro-bowls/All-pro): McCoy(3/2), Lynch(5/1), Forte(2/0), Murray(2/1), Foster(4/1), Charles(4/2) McCoy and Charles lead this group(Charles after 6 seasons was same as McCoy with 3/2). Comparative RBs(Contracts): Name(year contract was started): Dollars/year(years left on contract)...the guaranteed percent of entire contract when signed. Lynch(15): $10.8M(3)...50% Forte(12): $9.2M(1)...45.4% Foster(12): $9.2M(2)...47.7% Murray(15): $8M(5)...45% McCoy(15): $8M(5)...39.3% Charles(14): $7M(3)...14.2% We can see that 2012 contracts are somewhat higher than the 2015 contracts(sans Lynch), and that the McCoy contract has the lowest guaranteed monies upon contract signing(sans Charles, see below). Notes: It should be noted that Jonathan Stewart is actually comparable in regards to contracts(signed in 2014 for high value) but has only achieved one 1,000+ season with no pro-bowls to this point. His stats for above would be: Jonathan Stewart(14): $8.7M(3)...31.5% (Does anybody know how he obtained such a high contract? I'm baffled.) It should also be noted that Charles has suffered regularly from injuries which undoubtedly kept his dollars(and guaranteed dollars) down. Comparative RBs(workload in first 6 seasons): Name: Number of carries, 300+ carry seasons(350+ carry seasons) Forte: 1551, 1(0) McCoy: 1461, 2(0) Lynch: 1452, 1(0) Foster: 1391, 2(1) Charles: 1043, 0(0) Murray: 934, 1(1) In terms of comparable workload all but Charles seems somewhat comparable(Charles injury history reduces his numbers). Foster and Murray(only 4 years playing) have somewhat less carries but is possibly counteracted by their workhorse 350+ carry seasons. Dibs' conclusion: From all of the data, it seems obvious that the McCoy contract was not out of the ordinary. There are very few RBs who produce at a consistent high rate(regular 1,000+ yard seasons) and these RBs get paid roughly the same amount of money for a contract period that culminates when they reach the age of 31(or 30). McCoy's lower guaranteed monies combined with his greater accomplishments suggest that the contract is perhaps better for the Bills than the standard. Will McCoy maintain productivity through to the end of the contract? Here I thought to look at comparable RBs to McCoy through history. Again using the "4x1,000+ season in first 6 years" as a benchmark I compiled a list of RBs from over the past 20 years. I then determined when said RBs "hit the wall". I determined this by when a RB no longer achieved the 1,000+ yards benchmark. I also pinpointed(to the best of my ability) those RBs who's production stopped due to injuries. I know this is all rather simplistic but it does give a rough age where one can expect a RBs production to reduce. Hitting the Wall: Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season. Aged 28(1): Chris Johnson Aged 29(5): Ahman Green, Steve Jackson, LaDainian Tomlinson, Jamal Lewis, Edgerrin James Aged 30(2): Eddie George, Thurman Thomas Aged 31(2): Fred Taylor, Curtis Martin Aged 32(2): Ricky Williams, Emmitt Smith Injury Players: Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season. Aged 26(1): Terrell Davis Aged 27(2): Clinton Portis, Marshall Faulk Aged 28(3): Deuce McAllister, Shaun Alexander, Terry Allen Aged 29(1): Jerome Bettis Aged 30(2): Corey Dillon, Priest Holmes Aged 31(1): Ricky Watters Additional Players(still playing or retired early): Age of RB when he last achieved 1,000+ yards in a season. Aged 30(1): Barry Sanders Aged 31(2): Frank Gore, Tiki Barber(was a back up for first 3 years but fits this category I think). Totals(25 players): 13 RBs(52%) did not produce(1,000+ yards) after the age of 29. 7 RBs(28%) produced 1,000+ yards at age of 31(or older)(age of McCoy in final year of contract). Dibs' Conclusion: From looking at comparable RBs through recent(ish) history, we can guestimate that.... McCoy has roughly a 1 in 2 chance of not being productive in the last 2 seasons of his contract(aged 30 & 31) He has roughly a 1 in 4 chance to remain productive throughout the entire contract. There is roughly a 1 in 4 chance of him not being productive in the last 3 seasons of his contract(aged 29, 30 & 31). There is roughly a 1 in 2 chance of him remaining productive for at least 4 of the 5 contract years.

I don't think you've ever explained why you hate EJ so much. I mean, here is this young athlete who is a part of your team....he tries as hard as he can to become the player that everybody wants for the team...and you sit back patiently for the day he is cut so you can celebrate his failure. What's up with that? Did he run over your dog or something?

She could buy you the bar where you bought her the drink.

But is that developing a QB, or merely molding them for a specific system? And if Foles was "developed" as a QB then why did he regress to the point where Kelly didn't want him anymore? No, I have to disagree. I don't feel that Kelly is good at developing QBs at all.

I'm hoping that there actually was a Marrone induced pressure whispering in his ear "Don't make a mistake. Don't turn the ball over.", and with that gone EJ's lateness might be somewhat reduced.

You forgot the "imo" at the bottom of your post. Edit: Oh, sorry. I thought you were Leroi.

Neither actually. I was responding to Captain Hindsight's second line... "Usually makes the right read but he's late every single time. Gotta speed it up".