Cash

Brilliant and very well done! Unfortunately I wasn't able to make the Brawlers' home opener here in Boston, and won't be able to make their last home game either. I think they just have the 2. If this league still exists next year, I'll probably go check it out.

Technically, the 8.1 is not a "projected win total", but an "average simulated result". Out of the thousands (millions? Dunno what kind of computing power 538 has) of simulations run, our average win total works out to 8.1, but I'd guess around 20% of the simulations have us winning 10 games or more -- because that's our playoff %. Possibly higher, even, because I imagine we miss the playoffs at 10-6 in a decent number of simulations. So there's definitely a chance, and not that horrible a chance either. If we lose this Sunday, I think it's pretty much over -- I can't see us getting to 10 wins without sweeping the Jets, and there's almost no way we'd win a potential 9-7 playoff tiebreaker. If we can get back to the non-QB level of play from the first 2 games, and Orton can keep up about this level of play (or preferably cut down on his turnovers), I think we have a real shot at it. But if we keep playing like garbage until the last drive or two, we'll get smoked.

Glad it's back! Week 8 - Bills @ Jets - L Week 10 - KC @ Buff - W Week 11 - Bills @ Fish - W Week 12 - Jets @ Bills - W Week 13 - Browns @ Bills - W Week 14 - Bills @ Denver - L Week 15 - Packers @ Bills - L Week 16 - Bills @ Oakland - W Week 17 - Bills at NE* - L Which would put us at 9-7. I could live with that.

We actually disagree about the stunts, I think. Like I said the first time, the issue I've seen is one of confusion, not lack of athleticism. One of the all-22 breakdowns in recent weeks highlighted how Richardson would frequently try to help out another lineman whenever Richardson thought he had no one to block. Unfortunately, he frequently did have someone to block; it's just that that someone was coming in late on a stunt or delayed rush. That's not an athleticism or physical skill problem, it's a mental/diagnostic problem. If that can be fixed - whether by replacing the player(s), changing techniques and/or blocking schemes, or just through learning from experience - I think we'll be in a lot better shape. But whether it can be or not, I still don't think that putting extra TEs in the game helps the O-line. Extra TEs help the tackles a lot more than the guards. And I don't see them doing anything to help on the stunts and delayed rushes up the middle. If Richardson and Pears can't tell when to stay put and wait for a man to block, having extra blockers out wide won't do a thing to help. There is an argument for having multiple backs stay in to block, but I still feel that we're ultimately better off having better players on the field most of the time. And I have no doubt that our 5th-best WR is a better overall player than our FB or our 2nd-best TE. If everyone running the Bills is good at their job, then we seem to have a serious disconnect between FO and coaches. Because the FO has put a lot of resources into the WR and RB positions, and very little into the TE and FB positions. If playing extra TEs and a FB is truly necessary to help the O-line (I disagree, but maybe you're right), then it still goes back to the FO for not providing the coaches with a good enough O-line. Alternatively, it's possible (but we can't prove it) that the O-line, while inadequate overall, wouldn't look as bad if the coaches were implementing the offense differently. Hey Big Cat, since Kelly doesn't seem interested in fully answering your question, I'll take a stab at it. My guess is that with Orton, the Bills have played with: 4 WR/0 TE/1 RB - 3% of the time 3 WR/1 TE/1 RB - 40% 2 WR/2 TE/1 RB - 30% 1 WR/2 TE/2 RB - 15% 1 WR/3 TE/1 RB - 10% 0 WR/3 TE/2 RB - 2% Totally guessing off the top of my head, so probably way off. I would say that if Goodwin was healthy, the 4 WR should be played a decent bit more, but as is, I won't call for it to be used more. I think the 3 WR set should be the base offense, as it was last year, and be used maybe 60-70% of the time.

One of the main problems with our O-line seems to be confusion. I.e., we let a lot of free rushers in on stunts, delayed rushes, or Pettine-style blitzes where the pressure is disguised. It doesn't seem like the O-line is getting beat by 1-on-1 pass rush moves nearly as much as just not blocking the right guy(s). So I do wonder if spreading things out more might make it harder for opposing defenses to confuse our line? Theoretically, it should move a couple defenders away from the ball, and make their blitzes slower to develop.

I certainly hope so, but I'm not very optimistic. During our 2-0 start, one of the things I was hopeful about was that, even though our offense hadn't been playing very well, there was reason to expect that both the QB and O-line would play better with more experience. Four weeks later, the QB position is playing a bit better, though not exactly in the way I expected, but the O-line looks a lot worse. It's very concerning.

That's 3 times already that we've been flexed to Fox. Weird.

My guess is that most plays are neutral - maybe the range from C- to B or something? B+ or above would be positive, and D+ or lower would be negative? Just a guess. And if that's the case, it doesn't surprise me that most of the scores are pretty close to zero. Most guys on most plays are pretty much "doing their job" - not screwing up, but also not making a great play. I like his methodology in principle, but I agree that it could use some more explanation. It would be nice if he had a reference post he could link back to every week, where he maybe gave examples of what constitutes a positive or negative play, and roughly what kind of play earns what kind of grade. I do like that he keeps a running tally year-long. Whatever his system is, it at least approximates how guys actually played, and it's nice having a an aggregate score for the year.

One sign that this Bills regime may actually be "different" than past ones is that we had a few opportunities for a similar cut this year, and took none of them. Manny Lawson was kept as a backup. Kraig Urbik was kept as a backup. Erik Pears lost his RT job, and was kept at another job. Which, granted, he doesn't seem very good at, but I'd rather have him available at RG or RT than a street free agent. Plus, and it's hard to quantify this, but it makes sense that Henderson would benefit from playing next to a veteran who's experienced at RT - a good resource to lean on. None of the above players are great, although I still think Lawson is a pretty good SLB miscast as a DE. But they're a significant step up above the replacements that would be signed if they were cut.

The other issue (and this has been said in other threads as well) is that when we do throw deep, it tends to be go routes only. A few successful 15-20 yard square ins will back off the defense pretty well, but too often, our passing playbook seems to be drag routes, curls, go routes, and rollouts, and that's it. It's the intermediate stuff -- think 10-20 yards past the line of scrimmage -- where you really hurt a defense, and it's definitely lacking for us. How much of that is on Hackett and how much on EJ, I don't know. I will say that unlike the Trent Edwards era, we at least have more short throws to WRs or RBs on the move, rather than stationary targets.

Matt Moore is one of the better backups in the league, but I don't think it makes much sense to bench a guy early in his 3rd year. Give him the whole year, and if he's still no good, you can move on in the offseason. Personally, I was very anti-RT when he came out in the draft, and still don't think he'll amount to much, but I'll admit that he's been a lot better (or more mediocre?) than I thought he'd be. He does throw some nice passes when he's on - particularly in week 2 against us. I thought he overall played pretty well in that game, it's just that the rest of the team was getting beat badly. PS. Every time I see "Tannehill", I read it as "Talleywhacker". I miss crayonz.

You are right, he is wrong. But your example kind of confirms his point? He's basically saying that a Seahawk who grew up in Alabama wouldn't have been very affected by the conditions last week, whereas a Charger from Alaska would have wilted. Human beings can and do acclimate to their climate. The Alaskan Charger, assuming he stayed in the area all summer, is a lot better equipped to deal with extreme heat than the Alabaman Seahawk who spent the offseason working out in Seattle.

The Gragg play was also quite nice. I love that kind of misdirection/play-action stuff. Use a fake, get the QB moving, hit the TE moving the same way, let him run. Very nice play design and execution. Gragg is a ways away from being a good TE, but he's a good enough athlete to turn that play from a 6 or 7 yard gain to the 14 yard gain he got.

Great idea! I will go with a boring guess: Running play to CJ Spiller for 4 yards.

Unfortunately, once this thread gets merged INto the other, the "read first unread post" lINk will take me back to the begINnINg of the thread INstead of where I left off. That stINks.

I live in Boston, and the Patritos are easily my least favorite team. If I didn't have to deal with their terrible fans all the time, that might not be the case.

I don't care how bad Lewis looked in practice/preseason, Jordan Palmer stinks. And he doesn't know the system, where Lewis at least played sorta half decent in five starts last year. I will give the Bills the benefit of the doubt and think that they're not done addressing the QB position for now, but they get no credit for signing Palmer. I will also say that Whaley's "we're set at backup QB" comments look pretty foolish now. Apologies to the brightsiders, but I worry that his "we didn't mind giving up next year's #1 because we think it'll be in the 20s" comments are going to look just as foolish in a couple months. But back to his backup QB comments for a second, they bothered me at the time, even though I liked what Lewis did last year and was okay with bringing him back as the #2. Whaley said something to the effect of, "you want your backup QB to be able to go .500 for you, and Lewis was 2-3." First off, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure 2-3 is below .500, so Whaley's statement just didn't make sense right off the bat. Second of all, it's weird for the GM of a 6-10 team to be talking about the backup going .500. Forget about the backup, how about getting the starter to go .500? It's been a while since we've even been there. And third, it's just an asinine thing to say. NFL coach/GM-speak is all about "we're always looking to improve everywhere" and "competition makes everyone better", etc. Which I think is mostly BS, but there is something to it -- complacency is bad when the margins are as thin as they are in the NFL. To then turn around and say that you're not even going to attempt to improve THE MOST IMPORTANT POSITION is crazy. What makes it even crazier is to say that your justification is that all you want out of your backup is to go .500. Well sure, you can live with your backup going .500, but why wouldn't you burn some calories and try to find the diamond in the rough that can go .600? Maybe you can pull a Matt Cassel and trade him for a 2nd-rounder the following year. And what's more, the guy that you're being complacent about didn't even go .500! You're acting like Lewis was Frank Reich or something.

Good point. When Jim Irsay was caught with half a pharmacy in his car and the other half in his bloodstream (and $20k in cash, which isn't at all suspicious), there were a lot of "addiction is a serious disease, you guys -- he need help!" articles flying around. We don't see nearly as many of those sentiments when it's a player.

FWIW, Hopkins was pretty bad prior to getting hurt, at least from what I saw. 2013 preseason kickoff stats 2013 preseason FG stats 5/5 on FGs, but with a long of 39. Very poor on KOs. And the one day I was able to make it to camp, he was comically bad on FGs. He had like 3 or 4 straight kicks that he "popped up" that landed well short of the goal posts. Probably either a mental problem or a weird technique error, and correctable I'm sure, but not a good sign nonetheless.

If I can generalize a bit, I think the basic arguments of each side are as follows: Anti-Da'Rick: Great signing post-draft, and as Kirby said, "If he was an idiot cut him, if not develop him." Several reports out of camp said that he was loafing, didn't know the playbook, and in general didn't seem to be taking this chance very seriously. For people in this group, that counts as being an idiot, and the Bills were right to cut him. (Some of these people think there was and is a good chance he'll eventually figure it out, but it would never have happened without him getting cut first. Some others seem to think that the Bills cutting him is proof that he's a bum and will never amount to anything, and any success he's had or will have is a fluke.) Anti-Hogan: Imagine if, halfway through the movie Rudy, Sean Astin was moved to 2nd-string, and by the end, he had replaced a 4-star recruit as the starting defensive end? That's what seems to be happening with Hogan right now. Great story, great example for the other players, but there's a reason that Rudy was on the scout team and not dressing for actual games.

Just going from memory here, but weren't the Cali-based Raiders and Rams in the AFC and NFC Wests, and the Vikings and Steelers in the Centrals? So all of those 70s streaks at least started in 4-team divisions like everyone plays in today. The Raiders', Rams', and Steelers' streaks were fully in 4-team divisions, and the Vikings put up 2 (or 3?) of their 6 years in a 5-team division with a historically awful expansion team. Still very impressive, but the more teams in a division, the harder it is to maintain those streaks. I don't think it's fully a coincidence that we didn't see as many long streaks during the decades when every division was at least 5. You'll still get dominant teams -- the Bills had what, 4 straight and 5 of 6 from '88-'94? -- but it's less likely that none of the other teams in the division jump up to have a good year and break the streak. There's a reason that since the NFL went to the current division alignment, we've seen more division winners with bad records. The fewer # of teams per division, the more likely that all 4 have losing records, or all 4 have winning records, or 1 stays dominant for a long time, etc. From a statistical standpoint, the best alignment in US sports history was MLB prior to divisions being created. One division, everyone plays 162 games, everyone plays everyone else a bunch of times, and whoever has the best record at the end wins the pennant. It's a lot easier to tell who the best team was with that format.

Interesting. What size were divisions in the 70s? The Patriots' AFCE win streak has been helped by the 2002 realignment, which dropped divisions from 5 or 6 to 4, and took the Colts out of our division. I wonder if there were also smaller divisions in the 70s, and that helped contribute to all those streaks.

Makes a lot of sense. Johnson doesn't seem to have really done much of anything in practice or preseason, and based on the snap counts I saw at Rumblings, hasn't even played much on special teams. If a guy that raw and late-drafted makes the team, it's because of special teams. Seems much more like a practice squad candidate than a roster spot to me. Maybe they'd worry about someone snatching him up if they cut him, but I doubt it. Basically no chance either one gets cut. Dixon was signed to a 3-year deal as a free agent this past offseason. Brown was acquired this past offseason for a 4th (or 3rd) round draft pick. There's no way the Bills would make either move, then turn around and spite themselves without something drastic happening. Jarius Wynn is likely safe for the same reason, although his was only a 1-year deal, so Wynn being cut would be less surprising. And I would say that Alan Branch is safe, since he signed a 3-year contract extension this past year, but in his case, it looks like something drastic is happening.

I think it's fairly unlikely that all 3 of Lawson, Urbik, and Pears make the team. Wouldn't be shocked if Jacuies Smith gets Lawson's spot when it's all said and done. I think Smith is the new Kyle Moore.

Barnwell's age adjustment for 40 times seems a little smelly to me. Is a 26-year-old really slower than he was at 21 when he ran at the combine? Michael Johnson was 28 when he tore up the Atlanta Olympics. Usain Bolt didn't seem any slower in the 2012 Olympics (age 25) than the 2008 Olympics. Carl Lewis was faster in the 100m in 1988 (age 27) than in 1984. Obviously there is a slowdown with age, but my guess is that for a pro athlete who's training year-round, he won't start losing speed until he hits 30 or so. So what? So Barnwell's method heavily biases towards inexperienced teams. So it's no surprise that all of the teams at the top are bad offenses, because having a lot of inexperienced players tends to mean having a bad team.