folz
-
Posts
1,279 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by folz
-
-
2 hours ago, Success said:
I've said it a few times - this is the best team of the JA era. It's the most talented, the deepest and the most balanced.
Honestly, it may be the best Bills team of all time. I don't know if that sounds like sacrilege or hyperbole (or both), but I think it has potential to be.
The key is the bolded above in Success' post. This is by far the deepest team that we have had in the McBeane era. Our depth was tested last year and we were lacking. That should not be the case this year. It's been a slow build over 5 years, but we are now a very deep team at almost every spot.
And as far as overall talent, who have we really lost over the last 4 years that played any significant role:
Beasley, Singletary, John Brown, McKenzie, Feliciano, Star, Levi, a waning Jerry Hughes, Edmunds, Addison, Moss, Daryl Williams, Vernon Butler
Out of that group, the only above-average production we got in those 3 years was Beasley in 2020.
Some of our additions since the end of 2021:
Von Miller, Floyd, Poona, Shaq, Jordan Phillips, DaQuan, Settle, Rapp, Benford, Elam, Harty, Sherfield, Damien Harris, Murray, Cook, McGovern, Torrence, Edwards, Kincaid, Martin, Bernard, Shakir, Williams
Not saying ALL of those guys are studs by any means and many are still a wait and see, but it's pretty obvious that overall it is superior talent in volume and quality to what we have lost. And in comparison to last year, if they just stay healthier and have less distractions, that is a huge plus for this season even before you equate in this year's additions. Heck, just Tre, Hyde, Josh, Gabe, Jordan P, Poyer, and Von being healthier/available is a big difference from last season (provided they can all stay that way, for the most part). And I feel that they addressed the two biggest offensive issues from last season: slot WR and interior O-Line.
And the last addition, of course, is experience: players like Knox, Davis, Josh, Brown, Rousseau are all more experienced than they were 2, 3, 4 years ago. And our more recent guys: Benford, Elam, Shakir, Cook all now have at least a year under their belts.
imo...this is definitely the best team in both overall talent and top to bottom depth since pre-drought.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, GoBills808 said:
Must compare w rest of league
I couldn't find anything recent about GM's or team's overall draft success rate/ranking (except one SI article that I couldn't access without a subscription). But in searching, I did find these tidbits (not sure how much they help to answer the original query, but I think they do show that drafting really well is a lot more difficult than most fans think).
According to this article, only 30% of draft picks even ever make a final NFL 53-man roster.
Per the article linked below: "...based on a study of 1996-2016 draft picks....
16.7% didn’t play for the team that drafted them
37% were considered useless. They either didn’t play much or didn’t make the team.
15.3% were considered poor. Had limited playing time and didn’t do well in the time they had.
10.5% were considered average. These are mediocre players that had starts or significant contributions over 2-3 years.
12.3% were considered good. These could be mediocre or average players that were multi-year starters.
6.9% were considered Great. This category is the first that includes undeniably good draft picks. In order to be considered great, they would’ve had to play for the team that drafted them into a second contract, and also performed well over those years.
1% were considered legendary. These are future Hall of Famers, multi-year All-Pros among the best in the league for most of their relatively long careers.
So, only about 8% of draft picks are players that really make much of a difference beyond replacement value, and only about 30% see much playing time or make a significant contribution to the team. That means among the 260 or so drafted players each year, only about 2-3 will have Hall of Fame caliber careers, and only about 21 will be undisputedly good picks- and very good but not HoF caliber players."
https://www.dailynorseman.com/2022/4/26/23042105/nfl-draft-pick-bust-rate-remains-very-high
Just food for thought.
-
1
-
1
-
-
In regards to Bernard, I was going to go into a whole thing about the change in defensive philosophy, thinking of our LBs as Left LB and Right LB rather than the traditional OLB/MLB, the need for LBs who aren't a liability in coverage (lateral speed, even if giving up a bit of size) to be able to stop the slants and screens to players like Hill, Waddle, Chase, Higgins, etc., 3 safety personnel groupings, etc., etc., etc.
But we are so close to the start of the season now that we can all just wait and see if McD's plan/defensive tweaks work. So, all I will say is, I am very excited to see what our defense looks like this year because I actually think that they are going to be scary good (provided they stay healthy). We'll see. 🤷♂️
P.S. I wasn't as worried as some about the MLB position, but the Kirksey signing took away any last doubts I had. And kudos to Benford for winning the CB2 spot.
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, FilthyBeast said:
Teef unfortunately I've been batting at a really high clip lately, including predicting the Bills demise last year 100% accurately.
Obviously hope I'm wrong but gut feeling tells me it's just not meant to be for this team primarily because of the current HC and GM.
What demise are you talking about? The Bills went 13-3, with their three losses being by only a combined 8 points. Made the playoffs. Won a playoff game. Then had one bad playoff loss to the Bengals in the divisional round. All of that on top of all of the major injuries and possibly more adversity than any team has ever faced in one season. And don't forget, we had lost in the divisional round the year before (to KC), so the 2022 Bills ended in the same place as the 2021 Bills (despite the difference in how the last game of each season played out). Where is the demise? Demise would indicate some sort of major drop off, collapse, etc. Please explain to us how you predicted something that didn't happen. And if their demise is because they didn't reach the Super Bowl, well, each year I could predict 32 teams not making the Super Bowl, and you know what? I'd have a 93.75% hit rate at the end of the year.
As to your predictions this year, I realize that you are just trolling and trying to get a rise out of us (ok, I'll bite), but you could at least try and make it more believable. Do you honestly think the following, honestly?
1. Only 10 teams will finish with a worse record than the Bills?
2. That 18 teams will have a better record than the Bills?
3. The Dolphins will win 15 games? 🤣 Most Bills fans weren't predicting 15 wins for the Bills last year and we were an almost consensus pick to make the Super Bowl.
4. The Pats will be the 2nd best team in the AFC East?
5. That KC would have gone undefeated (if Kelce didn't get hurt and Jones was playing)?
I guarantee that you wouldn't put any actual money (in real life) on any of those 5 things happening. Because you'd lose a lot of money. I mean the most reasonable of those predictions is New England finishing second in the division, and even that is a long shot.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Let's put it this way. McDermott and Frazier managed a defense that was just below average (#18) in 2017 and 2018 with lesser talent at LB - well, pretty much anywhere except safety, actually.
I don't expect the defense to be #2 overall this season. I think there will be mistakes, and we'll be gashed from time to time. But I think it will be good enough to win with most of the time. I don't think it will be trash.
And I could always be pleasantly surprised.
I agree that we may not reach the #2 rank again (so much goes into that, strength of opponents, etc.), but I do think we will be a better overall defense than we were last year...provided we stay relatively healthy. I think Tremaine was a better player than some of his detractors give him credit for, but he was by no means a special player. His height made it more difficult for QBs to throw deep middle/seam routes, but otherwise, he did not stand out in any other area (including that MLB type of aggression and attitude---no players feared him). He was not great in the run game or in coverage, and he didn't make many key/important or splash plays.
Over his 5 years with the Bills, Tremaine averaged per year: 113 tackles, 1.3 sacks, 1 interception, 0.4 forced fumbles. So, fewer than 1.5 sacks and 1.5 turnovers per season...that's it. The tackle totals don't look bad, I guess, until you realize that 51 players had more tackles than Tremaine last year (of course that includes safeties too, not just LBs).
Even if we had to start Dodson all year, I just don't think it is going to be that big of a drop off (compared to what we've gained or got back in other areas). Do you not think Dodson could get 102 tackles, 1 sack, 1 INT if he started all year? That's all he'd need to match Tremaine's 2022 stats. But I think the real plan is to have the smaller, faster backers, who are all good in coverage and can all tackle well (Milano, Bernard, Williams, Spector) play more (and you can probably include Siran/Rapp 😁 in that equation too) ...and then your Dodsons and Kleins (if he's signed back) are there for more obvious run-heavy teams or game situations. We need to finally be able to stop those quick slants and screens of KC, Miami, Cinci. Height over the middle doesn't help if they can just complete the passes in front of you and you can't corral those guys.
I think we need to stop thinking about the position as some traditional middle linebacker spot (we aren't a traditional 4-3 or 3-4 defense). We need to see it more like LB left and LB right. I think they were hoping that Bernard would grab the spot, maybe with Williams to add in more as the season wore on. But Williams is best served behind Milano right now, and Bernard's injury pushed Dodson forward for the time being (obviously Spector wasn't ready for a promotion).
-
1 hour ago, balln said:
That’s only way THIS roster does it. Allen and Kincaid. OuR D is going to be trash
What on Earth makes you think that?
Last year, the Bills defense was 1st in yards against, 2nd in points against, and 5th in takeaways, despite all of the injuries. The only loss of any significance this year is Tremaine Edmunds (and now Boogie if you can even count him).
Additions: Leonard Flyod, Poona Ford, Dorian Williams, Taylor Rapp.
Plus you could include Micah Hyde as an addition from last year (since he only played 2 games last season), Von Miller and Jordan Philips both missed 8 games last year, Tredavious didn't play until weeks 11/12 and still wasn't fully back from his knee injury yet, Poyer was playing through multiple severe injuries all year.
And our 3 young corners have another year under their belts now (for 11 games last year we were starting Dane and one of the rookies...now we only need 1 of these three guys to be starting at any time).
And McDermott looks to call a more aggressive defense than Frasier did.
Do you really think losing Tremaine Edmunds brings us from being a top 2 defense to trash? Especially with everything else mentioned above? I think you'd have a hard time convincing me that we won't actually be a better defense this year than we were last season. Besides, I don't think they wanted a Tremaine replacement anyhow. They are obviously going in a different direction with that position (they didn't just forget it).
-
3
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:
Last year the Jets drafted two All Pros in Round 1 and the Bills drafted a 4th string corner. Allen is saving Beane's job right now.
You guys are just getting ridiculous now.
The Jets had three 1st round picks that year. #4 Overall, #10 Overall, and #26 Overall.
The Bills had one first round pick. #23 Overall.
A lot easier (better odds) to pick All-Pros when you have more picks (and 2 in the top 10), rather than picking 23rd. Are you seriously trying to intimate that if the roles were reversed, the Jets would have picked a stud/All-Pro at 23 and Beane would have nabbed three busts at 4, 10, and 26?
If you guys actually took your "realist" blinders off and looked around the league, you'd see that other teams make mistakes too and that overall Beane has done a great job. We have a very talented team...it isn't just Josh Allen on his own (the new battle cry). I have no problem with people criticizing particular moves or players (like drafting Boogie or whatever), but the exaggeration of the so called "realists" has now placed you guys further into fantasy land than any Bills Homer.
-
1
-
-
I'm a little late to the party, but I was curious to take a look at this for myself (trying to be as unbiased as a Bills Homer can be).
Quaterbacks: They are deeper at QB, but even with that, Josh is still a far superior QB to Tua, even when Tua is healthy and at his best. BIG EDGE BILLS
Allen Tua
Allen/Bark White/Thompson
Running backs: A lot of backs with a lot of carries on both teams. I'm hoping Cook will prove to be the best of all the backs and I think Harris stacks up with any of their guys too. But with an outside eye (not sure how good Cook will be/maybe Achane shows out), I'll give RBs a PUSH for now.
Cook Mostert
Harris Wilson, Jr.
Murray Gaskin
Johnson Ahmed
Evans Achane
Wide Receivers: I think an unbiased view has to give this one to the Dolphins, though I do like our depth better. But, the 1-2 punch of Hill and Waddle does it. DECENT EDGE to the DOLPHINS
Diggs Hill
Davis Waddle
Harty Wilson, Jr.
Sherfield Cracraft
Shakir Berrios
Isabella Chosen
Shorter Sanders
Tight End: No words needed. MASSIVE EDGE BILLS
Knox Smythe
Kincaid Kroft
Morris Saubert
Gilliam (TE/FB) Conner
Offensive Line: I am not going to even pretend that I know enough about offensive line play to make a judgement here. But really, the lines are pretty similar, each has a Pro-Bowler at LT, two young day 1/2 draft picks, one young unheralded guy, and veteran centers. I have heard a few times that the Phins line isn't great, whereas ours should at least be solid. But neither line is elite, so for the sake of argument I will give the O-lines a PUSH.
Overall Offense: The big edge that the Bills have with QB and TE far outweighs the smaller WR edge the Phins may have. Otherwise, talent-wise, pretty even. I think in good times, when Tua is healthy, their offense can be as potent as ours...but I don't think they can match our consistency of potency (mainly due to QB play).
Defense: Tough to quantify on a position by position basis because of the different styles of defense, so I'll break it up into front seven and back four. Both defenses have a lot of elite talent, Phins are stronger up front right now, we're more solid on the backend (as of now).
Front Seven (kind of in order of talent level): I do think our front seven could be as game-changing as theirs if we stay healthy and some players progress, but they have to prove it first...and we need to see if McD's defense and his use of LBs, etc. works. SOLID EDGE to the PHINS for now.
Bills: Miller, Milano, Rosseau, Floyd, Oliver, Jones, Phillips, Basham, Epenesa, Lawson, Bernard, Williams, Settle
Phins: Wilkins, Chubb, Ogbah, Phillips, Sieler, Baker, Reed, Van Ginkle, Davis, Riley, Tindall
Back Four: Our first 4 guys are studs, with Ramsey out, Howard is their only stud...and our depth is waaaay more solid. SOLID EDGE to the BILLS.
Bills: Poyer, Hyde, Tre, Johnson, Dane, Benford, Elam, Rapp, Hamlin, Neal
Phins: Ramsey (out til Dec), Howard, Holland, Jones, Kohou, Needham, Smith, Elliot
Special Teams: Bass > Sanders; Martin = Bailey; in 2022 Bills ST ranked 5th, Miami 27th. Return-wise, is Braxton Berrios better than Harty or Isabella? No, about the same. EDGE BILLS.
Let's face it, if you take QB out of the discussion, talent-wise, these teams seem to be about as even as you can get, just with the talent maybe sprinkled in a few different areas from each other. I'd say each team has about 8-9 elite-level players (so, that is about even too). So, I have no issue with someone arguing that the Dolphins may be more talented on paper (sans QB)...but to say overall or "in a landslide" or by a large amount definitely seems like either hyperbole or wishful thinking. I still give the overall team talent edge slightly to the Bills (before weighing in QB), and then obviously, Josh tips the scales significantly.
But all this means is that this season is going to be a lot of fun, and one hell of a ride. We aren't going to win 'em all on a march to the Super Bowl...it's going to be a dog fight all the way...and I love it. That's how football is supposed to be...tough divisional battles preparing you for hard-nosed playoff games.
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, PBF81 said:
Less with more:
Last three seasons ...
3-0 in the Wild Card Round (2 of those wins against QBs Thompson and Jones)
1-2 in the Divisional Round
0-1 in the Conference Championship Game with the person we're talking about walking the Loss over to Reid on a silver platter at the end of the game.
A supposed defensive expert allowing an average of 28 PPG, over 31 if we don't count the offensively bereft Pats, in our last four playoff games.
Beating the Colts w/ Rivers despite being outplayed in that game.
4-3 overall with two of those wins against marginal playoff teams and both with low-end QBs, and another win while being outplayed by a team with the 9th ranked scoring offense and 10th ranked scoring defense and a 39-year old washed up QB in his last-hurrah season.
Winning a division with QBs like Jones, Fitzpatrick, Tagovailoa whose in and out with injuries like most people go out for wings, Skylar Thompson, Mike White, Zach Wilson, and Sam Darnold is hardly impressive. It would have been along the lines of tragic had we not been able to do that, which fed directly into those seedings.
Let's see how he does this season, over/under achieves, now that there's finally some competition in the division for the first time in over 20 years. Brady & Belichick had it easy in that regard too.
You could kind of put lists together like this for every team (save maybe the Super Bowl winners, since they can always answer that list with a Lombardi):
For example, in relation to the bolded statement above: Isn't Shanahan a supposed offensive expert? In 5 of his last 6 playoff games they have averaged 15.8 points per game. The only time SF scored more than 23 points in their last 6 playoff games, it was against a Geno Smith-led Seattle team that was thought to be tanking at the start of the season.
Or, SF blew a 10-point lead with 6 minutes to go in the Super Bowl...this great SF defense allowed the Chiefs to score 21 points in the last six minutes of the game. [Shanahan walked the Loss over to Reid on a silver platter at the end of the game]
ETC.
I think we all have a bit of Bills myopia, whether one is considered a "Homer" or a "Realist". We are so hyper-focused on our team that we don't often have a similar perspective on other teams. It is almost like "Realists" tend to see our flaws as worse than similar flaws on other teams, and "Homers" tend to see our strengths as better than similar strengths on other teams. Or in reverse, "Realists" see our strengths as lower than others, while "Homers" see others flaws as worse than ours.
But as the OP showed (at least in regards to the drafting of SF and Buf) the truth is usually somewhere in the middle...or more even than (not as extreme as) we may think it is.
-
1
-
-
A few thoughts on MLB:
1. At this point, I think they would like Dorian to man that position, but it is a lot for a rookie from a small school to learn the defense well enough to call it right away. And if they had come out and said he's going to be the MLB and then he struggled early, it would be a much harder road (fans down on him, maybe he loses confidence in himself, etc.). Hopefully as the season goes on he gets plugged in more and eventually takes over. He's smallish, but he's a tackling machine...and fast enough to cover.
2. Obviously McD had a plan to change the defense up a bit (faster, cover LBs; putting three safeties on the field, etc.). I don't think they purposefully ignored the position, instead they wanted to change direction with the position/defense. They didn't want an Edmunds-type replacement. We'll have to wait until the season begins to see how McD is calling the defense and what the personnel groupings really are, but I'm sure he doesn't want to tip his hand too much before then. Will the change work...we just have to wait and see at this point. But it is silly to believe that they just forgot to get a MLB. I mean, with teams like KC, Cinn, and Miami, etc. speed is more important than bulk at LB. How many times have we been killed by quick hitting slants over the middle. A guy like Tremaine Edmunds (and probably even Dodson) don't have much of a chance covering or tackling slants by Tyreek Hill, Jaylen Waddle, Jamaar Chase, Tee Higgins, or fast and athletic TEs and slot guys. I don't think they wanted a Bobby Wagner or similar type of LB...they want faster LBs who are sure tacklers, so they can cover the speedy receivers we have to face without being a liability in the run game. I think it is a change in philosophy, not an ignoring of the position.
3. The Bernard injury hurts. I have a feeling he was the preferred option (with how they want to run things) until Dorian got good enough to take over. The idea also may have been to platoon the position for a while, much like they did with CB2 last year (though it's a much tougher position to do so with since they call the plays). But if we are playing a heavier run team, we'd see more Dodson and Klein; a better passing team, we'd see more Bernard/Rapp/Spector/Williams. And I don't think we even really have a traditional Will and Mike anyways. The LBs will be more interchangeable. With only two backers on the field, you don't really have inside and outside LBs, it is more your side and my side.
4. Beane is the type of GM who looks under every rock (see the kid they brought in from the USFL---not that his signing prevents them from bringing in someone better, say after team cuts or whatever). To think he is ignoring the position is silly. And yes, last year there was a problem with depth across the team because we had so many injuries. But to the guy complaining about the WRs last year, I think you may have forgotten that Crowder went down in what game four. Had he stayed healthy, I don't think the WR position would have been as rough as it was last year. Lack of production from the slot and interior offensive line were the issues with the offense last year and they tried very hard to address that this off-season.
Again, we have to wait and see how it all plays out...maybe the posters who are very concerned about the position will turn out to be right, or maybe we just don't really know what their actual defensive plan is yet, and we are thinking too much about how we were previously rather than the new direction they want to go to combat the types of offenses that exist now, so everything will be fine. Not too much longer until we find out. 🤞
-
My shoutouts from the game:
RBs: This group looked good. Cook ran with ease. Murray showed strong in both the run and pass game. Mims played tough. And even Evans had a nice kick return. When Damien comes back, wow, this is going to be a real solid RB room, bringing a bit more balance and toughness to the offense.
WRs: Ditto. A lot of guys flashed. Shakir had two great catches but the bad drop also (needs to find consistency). Shavers also had a drop that marred his two nice catches a bit. But catching a TD pass always looks good. Isabella looks real fast and looked at least sure-handed in the return game. Patmon, Ateman, and Johnson all looked real good too, answered the bell (with Patmon pulling in the other tuddie).
Dorian Williams: 7 tackles (6 solo). This is exactly what I liked about this kid when the Bills drafted him. Fast, sure tackler. I love that the Bills put a focus on tackling with their defensive players. If you are a strong tackler, doesn't matter your measurables or draft position, you got a shot to make it in the league (see Dane Jackson and Damar Hamlin, etc.). Dorian still has a long ways to go to become a starter, but I will feel pretty confident with him backing up Milano.
Nice game for Boogie with 3 solo tackles and a sack. And Eli Ankou stood out to me as well.
Dane with the INT. Still holding off the young guys.
Lots of young guys on defense with one or two good plays, highlighted by Travin Howard's massive hit and solo tackle to prevent the 2-point conversion.
Martin punted real well. With punters, you don't know what you got till its gone. Glad we got Sam.
Matt Barkley: Insync with his receivers, got the ball out quickly, great anticipation and command of the offense. Completed 14 of 15 with 2 TDs.
The only thing I will say for Kyle Allen is he was under a good bit more pressure than Barkley (and against the 1s and 2s), and this is a very complicated offense to learn. He's had like 5 months to get it down, Barkley has had 5 years. Kyle deserves more time to get it together before we run him out of town...but yes, at this point I would definitely feel more comfortable with Barkley taking over in an emergency.
-
10
-
2
-
-
Another factor, which I actually really like with Sean's staff, is that players have to earn their playing time. It's not that McD won't play rookies, but you have to earn that playing time first. You don't get gifted a starting spot just because you were a first or second rounder or have a higher salary...you have to actually beat out (play better) than any vets or other players ahead of you. Like at the start of camp, etc, the vet/incumbent always gets the first crack at it (at least out of respect) and then they mix in the younger guy, and if he is better, he'll eventually take over. But he has to earn it. It just may take some rookies longer to earn playing time or a starting spot than others. I think this really matters in the locker room (with the vets), team chemistry, confidence in who's on the field, etc.
And as others have mentioned (in regard to rookies), you have to realize that now that we are a very talented team across the board: 1. It is harder for young guys to crack the starting lineup, and 2. we are now drafting at the bottom of the draft. It is not a guarantee, but the odds are you'll hit more often with guys drafting say 7-16 than you will drafting 23-30.
The lower you go in the draft, the harder it is to find guys that are ready to just step right in to a starting role. Also, it seems that Beane likes to take some shots early in the draft. Rather than take the guy who you kind of know his ceiling and he'll be a good/solid player, reach for the guy with untapped potential and more elite measurables and hope you can coach him up into a higher-end player. It's a bit of a boom or bust strategy maybe, but to me it looks like all of Beane's 1st rounders, except for Kincaid, fit that mold. We'll see if that strategy pans out in the long run and/or if he sticks with it, but the fact is that some of these rookies needed a lot more coaching and experience to reach their potential than other more pro-ready players---which obviously would affect their rookie playing time as well.
-
6 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:
Wrong. You're the one in denial if you think Gabe is even in the same ballpark as 2 guys you listed that are bordering #1 WRs.
Having more than half your games with 2 catches for under 35-40yds is a #3 WR at best. A #2 needs to find a way to contribute. Gabe does nothing with the field Diggs opens up for him, and went over 100yards once.
Gabe contribution was to let Stef get bracketed, consequence free. Not help move the chains, and generate incompletions (and 6 ints thrown his way on 48 catches because he cant separate).
I don't think your stat is as definitive as you believe it to be. It is the nature of #2 wide receivers to be a bit up and down throughout the season depending on opponent, game plan, etc. If you've ever played fantasy football...that becomes very clear. And that isn't even taking into account injuries.
Plus, you are exaggerating a bit now too. Gabe had 4 games with 2 or fewer receptions (that is 23.5%---not more than half). Gabe did have 8 games with 40 yards or less (still less than 50% in a 17 game season). He did have 10 games with 3 or fewer receptions (finally matching your more than 50% quote). I'm not saying I wouldn't like Gabe to be more consistent and even more productive, that would be great (and he may prove that this year---he's still young)...but it is not uncommon for #2 WRs to have at least a handful of quiet games.
And by no means am I comparing Gabe to the players below, just trying to point out that this stat that you are holding on to does not really denote failure for a #2 WR (again, especially when you aren't factoring in injuries).
2022
Tee Higgins had 6 games under 50 yards
Jaylen Waddle had 6 games with 1-3 recs and fewer than 50 yards
Davonta Smith had 7 games under 50 yards (including a 0, 17, 22, 23, 39, 44, 50)
And those three are currently considered the best #2s in the league right now. Guys who were drafted 33rd, 6th, and 10th overall (compared to Gabe, 128th overall) and who would all be #1s on any team that didn't happen to already have a superstar ahead of them.
Too often, when talking #2 WRs, people compare Gabe to the top 3-5 #2 WRs in the league only (all who were drafted significantly higher than Gabe).
Yet, as it is, only 6 #2 WRs had more yards than Gabe last year and only 1 #2 WR had more TDs than Gabe last year. If you compared Gabe to all #2 WRs, not just the top few guys, you would see that Gabe did perform as a top 5/6 #2 WR last season (in all areas but comp. %...and there are reasons for that too beyond just his drops, which he needs to clean up---a lot of low percentage passes thrown his way, i.e. bombs, etc.).
But no, that's alright, you go ahead and keep saying Gabe is barely even a #3 WR. 🙄
-
👍 He's gotten much better/more comfortable with that type of thing (commercials, etc.). But I think the shoot's hair stylist tried a little too hard with his locks. Stick with the natural look Josh. 🙂
-
Drafted 3rd round (93rd overall) by Tennessee.
Played for Titans for two years and then the Bears for one year. Going into his 4th year.
Career totals: 125 yards on 30 carries, 4.2 avg., no TDs, no fumbles
5 receptions for 71 yards and 1 TD
Never saw more than 14% snap count on offense
Last year played 63% of STs snaps for Chicago (for active games)
Has no punt returns in the league, but has returned 10 kickoffs with a 22.3 yard average
First year in the league he had a grade 2 hamstring strain that kept him out of 10 games (with him eventually ending up on IR)
Second year in the league, injured his knee in preseason and missed 6 regular season games. Came back week 7 only to reinjure the knee and get placed on IR.
Third year, was only active for 6 games for the Bears (doesn't appear to be any injury issues last year).
So, he has only played a total of 12 NFL games. Could be untapped potential (if he can stay healthy), or just camp fodder/practice squad emergency only type of guy. Doesn't hurt to kick the tires though.
Looks like the signing is official now per Jeremy Fowler of ESPN and Darrynton's agent.
https://billswire.usatoday.com/2023/07/25/buffalo-bills-sign-darrynton-evans-nyheim-hines/
-
2 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:
Von & Matt
Did you take a look at Matt's quads? Holy moly!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:
is it my ignorance and simplemindedness or do i distinctly remember Sean McDermott naming Nathan Peterman starter over Josh Allen lol
but yes we must always try to give credit where it's due
Are you trying to infer that because McD started Peterman, he wasn't on board with the Josh Allen pick? That he was going to push his 5th round QB from the prior year over #7 overall Josh Allen because Peterman was his pick and Josh was Brandon's pick? lol
Since McDermott brought Brandon Beane on, they have been a team. There is no way Brandon drafted a QB that McD didn't at least sign off on. And more likely, they dissected the QBs together and made the decision hand-in-hand. Peterman was starting because he had a year under his belt and Josh was a very raw rookie. Remember it was a rebuild year after a purge, they weren't expecting to go on a playoff run or anything. I guarantee you that the plan was always to work Josh into the starting line-up sometime that season, but they were hoping Peterman could buy them some time in letting Josh settle in and acclimate himself to the NFL. It's a big jump from Wyoming. Unfortunately, Nathan couldn't provide that and Josh was forced in earlier than planned.
3 hours ago, Chaos said:I concede and am willing to consider McDermott on the same level as Mike Sherman and Coryell
👍 I wish we could do double emojis so I could both like and laugh at your post. 😆
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Chaos said:
Only one of these guys had a future HOF QB on their team for at least 5 seasons.
You guys continue to try and set parameters to fit what you want to prove (and yet there are still a couple of exceptions to your statement---see below).
And sure, some of the guys on that list didn't have great luck with QBs (not every head coach does---especially on a list of guys who didn't make a SB), but let's not pretend that none of them had anything to work with at QB:
Mike Sherman had Brett Favre (HOF) for 6 years
Don Coryell had Dan Fouts (HOF) for 9 years
Matt LaFleur had Aaron Rodgers (*HOF) for 4 years
Chuck Pagano had Andrew Luck for 5 years
Jim Mora had Peyton Manning (HOF) for 4 years
Jack Pardee had Joe Thiesman (HOF) for 3 years and Warren Moon (HOF) for 4 years
Marty Shottenheimer had Bernie Kosar for 4 years, Joe Montana (HOF) for 2 years, Drew Brees (*HOF) for 4 years, and Philip Rivers for 1 year
Steve Mariucci had Steve Young (HOF) for 3 years and Jeff Garcia for 5 years
Dennis Green had Warren Moon (HOF) for 3 years and Kurt Warner for 2 years
Chuck Knox had Dave Krieg for 8 years and Joe Ferguson for 3 years
Marvin Lewis had Jon Kitna 2 years, Carson Palmer 7 years, and Andy Dalton for 8 years
Bum Philips had Archie Manning 1 year, Dan Pastorini for 5 years, and Ken Stabler for 3 years.
Wade Philips had John Elway (HOF) for 2 years and Tony Romo for 4 years
Mike Smith had Matt Ryan for 7 years
Jason Garrett had Tony Romo for 6 years and Dak Prescott for 4 years
*Future Hall of Famer
Obviously not all of those QBs equate to Josh. But then posters like you always seem to forget how raw Josh was coming into the league too. His first two years were seriously on the job training. It wasn't 5 years of automatic HOF QBing from Josh for McDermott. Really, isn't 3-4 years of a HOF QB in their prime just as good (or better) than 5 years of Josh, when you weigh in his first two seasons? He wasn't bad, but how could you equate his rookie year to say Brett Favre's 10th year in the league, or Warren Moon's 12th year, or Joe Montana's...etc.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:
Nice work!
Random thoughts...
Blanton Collier being listed as a non-winner is a little misleading. He won the NFL championship with the Browns in 1964, before there was a Super Bowl. Had there been a SB that year, the Browns would have been heavy favorites.
Marty Shottenheimer is a sad story. 21 years at .631 - you'd think he'd have at least one trophy to his name.
Don Coryell win percentage was good but not fabulous: .572. But he would probably be in HOF if he had picked up a Lombardi in his 12 years. Still belongs in Canton because of his contributions to the passing game.
Chuck Knox has the 10th most wins in NFL history. As Buffalo luck would have it, none of those wins was a SB.
Yeah, I shouldn't have included Blanton Collier. Good catch.
Agree on Coryell. Should be in the HOF regardless of no ring.
If Chuck Knox didn't return to the Rams for those last 3 years, he'd still be 13th overall in wins, have a .600 career win %, and in 19 years---13 winning seasons and 11 playoff berths. Great coach, but his 7-11 playoff record hurt him.
-
1
-
-
On 7/10/2023 at 9:06 PM, wakingfane said:
I am a huge McDermott fan but this thread does actually make me concerned / raise the eyebrows a bit. I would be interested to factor in each coach's win loss record up to the year they made the Super Bowl as well. And who are the highest win loss percentage coach's who NEVER actually made the Super Bowl. Just based on name and reputation, would you fire them too?? Sure, every case is individual and unique and there's always an anomaly to the trend, but seriously, just look at the company McD is in within this chart and it's not inspiring.
I'm not sure if I totally understand what question(s) you are asking and why, but...
Here are the coaches with the highest win% with no Super Bowl appearances
(including only HCs with all, or the majority of their career in the SB era; active coaches in purple):
Matt LaFleur (4 yrs): .712
Blanton Collier (8 yrs): .691Sean McDermott (6 yrs): .639
Marty Shottenheimer (21 yrs): .613
Mike Sherman (6 yrs): .594
Mike Smith (7 yrs): .589
Mike Vrabel (5yrs): .585
Don Coryell (14 yrs): .572
Wade Phillips (12 yrs): .562
Mike Zimmer (8 yrs): .562
Jason Garrett (10 yrs): .559
Chuck Knox (22 yrs): .558
Joe Schmidt (6 yrs): .558
Chuck Pagano (6 yrs): .552
Frank Reich (5 yrs): .547
Jerry Burns (6 yrs): .547
Dennis Green (13 yrs): .546
Jim Mora (15 yrs): .541
Chuck Fairbanks (6 yrs): .541
Jack Pardee (11 yrs): .530
Brad Childress (5 yrs): .527
John Robinson (9 yrs): .524
Matt Nagy (4 yrs): .523
Bill O'Brien (7 yrs): .520
Kevin Stefanski (3 yrs): .520
Art Shell (5 yrs): .519
Ron Meyer (9 yrs): .519
Marvin Lewis (16 yrs): .518
Steve Mariucci (9 yrs): .518
Bum Phillips (11 yrs): .516
Here are the records/winning percentages, for NFL Head Coaches who made more than one SB, prior to their first SB appearance (there are 35 other guys who made it to a single SB, but I didn't have the time/energy to include all of them---but this should at least give you an idea of whatever you were looking for):
[I did not include the four coaches who started coaching well before the Super Bowl era. McDermott is 62-35 .639 for reference.]
McVay 11-5 .688
Cowher 32-16 .666
Reid 51-29 .654
Tomlin 10-6 .625
Reeves 45-28 .616
Holmgren 38-26 .594
Flores 9-7 .563
Shanahan 29-23 .558
Coughlin 93-83 .528
Carroll 58-54 .518
Gibbs 8-8 .500
Johnson 29-29 .500
Vermeil 29-31 .483
Levy 61-66 .480
Noll 33-37 .471
Parcells 22-25 .468
Belichick 45-55 .450
Grant 11-14 .440
Fox 7-9 .438
Walsh 8-24 .250
Not sure if this adds up to anything---you'll have to tell me WF. But I had fun crunching the numbers for you.
-
1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:
I know, it's how we support our arguments
Like I could go through McDermott's win% and ask how many other coaches lucked into one of the weakest divisions sans Brady or were saddled w bad owners or a bad GM or no QB or whatever...but that's reductive. As valid as your line of questioning but just noise imo. There are easy criticisms of every method we can use to judge...the merits of your argument have to rest in your competence in explaining yourself, not how many holes you think you're poking in the other guy's logic.
Just because you don't choose to accept the merits of someone else's argument, doesn't mean they haven't put forth an argument with merit (which I think has been done by many throughout this thread). There are many reasons for wanting to keep McD and thinking a SB is still possible:
Ended 17-year playoff drought
.639 overall win percentage (21st overall of all coaches who ever coached in the NFL)
3 AFC East titles
Playoff berth 5 out of 6 years (one with Tyrod Taylor as QB)
1 AFC Championship appearance
Great culture, great locker room/team camaraderie
Continuity of systems and personnel (not having to reboot with new schemes, new coaches, etc.)
Family atmosphere among team and between team and fans
Free agents want to come to Buffalo now
Players want to come back to Buffalo after they have left
McD brought Beane here
In turn, they brought Josh here
It was Sean's staff and culture that groomed Josh
Josh backs McD
This year's team is probably the deepest we've had since the 90s SB era
He moved on from Frasier
I cut him a lot of slack for how last year ended because I understand that a football team is made up of human beings who can only take so much at one time.
ETC.
And in earlier posts, I showed a list of many Head Coaches who have made and won a Super Bowl after their 6th year of coaching. (But apparently, the standard is now that he has to have had the same QB and be with the same team).
Sure, you too can poke holes in each of my arguments above, but don't act like McD supporters don't have a leg to stand on. Here's a stat to look up, how many coaches were fired after 4 consecutive 10 win seasons and a playoff berth each of those years? How many coaches were fired after a 3-year stretch with a 37-12 record, with the most recent season being 13-3/14-4?
You can hold on to the 5 year QB/HC stat, it just doesn't sway me to want to move on from McDermott, or make me believe it is impossible for him to win a SB.
-
2
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:
It's not that complicated I think
No team that has ever started the same HC/QB combo for more than 5 years w no SB has seen them go on to win a championship
But as others have noted, there is no context for that stat.
How many of those QBs started as rookies (their first 5 years in the league)? How many were as raw as Josh?
How many of those coaches had prior head coaching experience?
How many of those teams were in a rebuild? Or how many were already well-established teams when either the QB or HC took over?
What were the circumstances those teams went through in those 5 years? Injuries, etc.?
How many duos ended due to either the QB or HC retiring?
Who is the owner and GM, what is their relationship with the coach, how do they handle business?
ETC.
None of that discounts the stat itself, or says it isn't a true stat, but it kind of shows why the stat isn't necessarily predictive of future outcomes. Because each situation is unique.
Obviously, Sean will be coaching the team this year and no way Terry fires him mid-season. So, we will all have a new perspective at the end of the season. Either the Bills win the SB and we're all happy, or we will dissect the reasons for not making it or not winning it and adjust our thought processes. If the Bills fail to make the playoffs or something (without some crazy circumstances), or get crushed in the playoffs, or lose to a much lesser team in the POs, then I think you'll find a lot more people agreeing with you. But if they lose a hard-fought game to a very good team in either the AFC Championship game or SB, then you'll probably have to deal with another off-season of fans (and Terry) still backing McDermott.
We'll see, but until this season plays out, this argument will just go in circles. You guys have no PROOF that Sean McDermott can't or won't win a Super Bowl, and I and other McD supporters have no PROOF that he can or will. It is all opinion and conjecture. One stat doesn't make something so.
19 minutes ago, Einstein said:McDermott supporters have run out of runway with their original arguments due to another disastrous playoffs so they must now frame the argument as a "Stick with McDermott and at least win the regular season" or "LOSE FOREVERRRR".
It's not like a team could fire a successful coach (Pederson in Philly) and then immediately hire a coach that takes them to the Super Bowl (oh wait, Sirianni in Phily). That would be impossible.
I think you are painting McDermott supporters inaccurately. Just because someone wants to stick with the coach doesn't mean they only care about regular season wins and/or don't want a Super Bowl. And no one is saying if he were fired there is no chance that someone else could come in and win a SB. It's an odds thing. For me, there are far greater odds that the next coach could set the team back, rather than win a Super Bowl. For every Siirianni and Gruden, there are 10-20 examples of it not happening. Besides Sirianni hasn't won anything yet. Now if McDermott were a mediocre or bad coach, then sure, you take that chance and make a switch. But when you have a winning coach, who built your program, you give him time (based on the circumstances of his tenure).
Some of you guys act like McD walked into a Super Bowl roster and he has failed miserably for 6 years. His first year, he inherited a severely talent-needy team with a below average QB; year two's team had even less talent (as they blew things up to start again and fix the cap) with an extremely raw, but talented QB; year three, still building up talent and Josh was still no where near what he became. So, in essence, it has only been three years where the team was talented enough to really compete. Yet he has a .639 win percentage, despite a 2-3 year rebuild. We don't point out his record because we only care about regular season wins, but to show that he is actually a very good coach. You can't fake it for 6 seasons. [Currently his percentage ranks 21st of all-time for NFL head coaches, just .002 behind Andy Reid.] It is not foolish or some ploy to point out a coach's record. That is one of three main things by which a coach is judged: record, playoff appearances, Super Bowls. Sean has two out of three. I think the arrow is still pointing up. You don't. And that's fine. But at least be honest in your posts. You know McDermott's supporters don't think the way you painted them above.
-
8 minutes ago, Billsflyer12 said:
Sorry left out an important detail for my stats on that specific post, 7th season with his FIRST team, I have mentioned it a couple of times in other posts of mine but left it out with this recent one. My apologies.
John Madden was only NFL head coach to make the Super Bowl beyond his 7th year with his 1st team as coach.
For Tom Landry, you either use the NFL Championship Game and the years before or you don’t, can’t have it both ways. If you don’t count the NFL Championship game because it was pre Super Bowl the he made Super in year 6, if you do count it then he made it in year 7.
All others on your good table made their 1st appearance beyond 7th year with team #2 or more.
I have listed in detail all the stats and data for my argument before in detail, some with reference articles. You can look them up on my profile if you want. I don’t need to keep posting them.
Sorry for leaving the important detail out of my most recent post. Hope you are well.
👍 Fair enough.
And yes, with Landry, it's fair to take him off my list (as an outlier---due to coaching 6 years prior to SBs). But you definitely can't equate him going to and losing an NFL Championship (in a 15-team league, the same year as SBI) the same as going to a Super Bowl. The Super Bowl actually existed that year and Landry wasn't in it.
So, I'm fine taking him out of the discussion altogether on both sides.
I don't know...it just seems in these discussions that the bar keeps getting set higher and higher for McDermott. The only coach who didn't
winappear in a Super Bowl in5678 seasons, with the same team, with a top QB for more than 5 years (no discussion of how raw that QB was), when the president was a democrat, and Mercury was in retrograde.I know, I'm being a bit over the top there, but it just seems that the more variables get added, the less useful the stat is in showing any kind of true trend or to be used as any type of predictor.
Look, we're all Bills fans. We all want a Super Bowl. We differ on our feelings about our head coach getting us there. It's all good.
-
2
-
-
On 7/7/2023 at 8:16 PM, Billsflyer12 said:
It’s been posted before in a number of threads, John Madden in 1974 is the only head coach to make his 1st Super Bowl appearance after his 7th year. John did it in his 8th season. Tom Landry made his 1st Championship game appearance in his 7th year. So other then the 2 all head coaches have made their 1st Super Bowl appearance in less time then McD has coached the Bills.
Dude, if you are going to argue a point with examples, maybe you should at least look up those examples to see if they are correct first (verify your information).
And I find it interesting that early in this thread it was all about how long it took a coach to WIN a Super Bowl, and once it was shown that like 40% of Super Bowl coaches didn't win their first Super Bowl in 6 years, then the bar lowered to how long it took a coach to APPEAR in a Super Bowl. Yet if McD APPEARED in a Super Bowl and LOST, none of the McD detractors would be happy with that, they would be calling for his head for losing the Super Bowl. So, to lower the bar for your argument, but not for Sean, shows that you are grasping at straws. But, you should at least try and get your arguments correct and not just make stuff up.
Here is some data I posted earlier in this thread (obviously you haven't read the whole thread):
Coach Years to 1st SB appearance Years to 1st Super Bowl victory
Tom Landry 11 12
Bill Belichick 7 7
Andy Reid 6 21
Tom Coughlin 12 12
Pete Carroll 8 8
Chuck Noll 6 6
Bill Cowher 4 14
Tony Dungy 11 11
Dick Vermeil 5 10
John Madden 8 8
Gary Kubiak 9 9
Bruce Arians 8 8
I see seven coaches (not just Madden) who didn't appear in a Super Bowl until after their 7th season (and please check and verify my list).
And its hard to use Tom Landry as an example because he coached for 6 years before the Super Bowl existed. So, while he did win Super Bowl #6, you can't count that as his 6th year when he had actually been a head coach for 12 years already. And if you say, well he probably would have done it earlier if Super Bowls existed earlier in his career, I would counter with his win/loss record of his first 6 years (25-53). And using the fact that he made a Championship game in his 7th year, is a bit misleading as well because it was an NFL championship game in the first year of the Super Bowl, that Dallas lost to Green Bay. Green Bay would go on to play and beat the AFL Champion KC Chiefs in Super Bowl I. So, that Championship game, was more like the first NFC championship (not a Super Bowl). Also, there were only 15 NFL teams in 1966 (pre-merger) when Landry made that Championship game. A lot easier to make a Championship game (not even a SB) with 15 teams, rather than 32 teams.
-
2
-
Bills-Jets week 1
in The Stadium Wall
Posted · Edited by folz
Went over to NFL.com to check in on the KC/DET game, and one of the home page headlines read:
"Week 1 Picks: Jets a lock vs. Bills?!"
All 5 NFL "experts" on that site picked the Jets to win.
"Dan: Perhaps I'm a prisoner of the moment, trusting the Jets hype train to stay on the tracks when in reality I'm asleep at the wheel. But I do know the Bills couldn't score more than 20 points in either of their meetings with the Jets last season. I don't know if New York's defense will be as good as it was last season, but the offense is better -- and I can't say the same thing about Buffalo with nearly as much confidence."
I'm not saying the Jets can't win the game, but it is amazing to me how so much of the media has completely written Buffalo off as a declining team. I can understand not being the darling pick to go to the Super Bowl (like last year), but there are many that don't even have us making the playoffs. I mean, I love that the Bills have been able to have an off-the-radar off-season (I think that was really good for them), but how can the media actually think they have fallen so far off the cliff?
Can't wait for the lads to prove everyone wrong!